On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
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.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
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.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.


No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
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.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.


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.

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

Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:


Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.


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.

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.

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 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