SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:

- These trains have some of the most uncomfortable seating I have ever
experienced, certainly the worst of any London-area commuter train. There
is virtually no padding in the seat whatsoever, and the back itself is
curiously upright and somewhat oddly shaped - as if the lumbar support is
too high up. The result is lots of wriggling commuters who can't get
comfortable, including me. A BIG step backwards in comfort from the seats
on the Networkers. What were Bombardier thinking of when they designed
this??? They already had a half-decent slimline seat design that's used in
the 375/9, but oh no, let's design something else even less comfortable.
Note that most of the seating on tube trains is actually quite comfortable.

- Despite having hardly any seating, the atmosphere is quite claustrophobic
because of the overly-high seat backs that obscure views of the rest of the
carriage when seated.

- The windows feel as if they're tiny and high-up, giving a sense of being
penned in.

- The colour scheme is just grim. Sickly bright blue edges of the
carriages, dull grey seat fabrics, and an odd-patterned lino floor that
looks more like it should be in a nursery school. I guess the predominately
blue and yellow colours are an overhang from the Connex corporate colour
scheme? :-( What a difference colours can make though - compare to the
civilised green-themed interior of the Southern 377s.

- There is woefully insufficient seating, particularly in the end carriages
areas where there sections of just a few tip-up seats instead of "proper"
seating. Okay, more standing space was needed, and 2x2 seating and wider
doors has helped, but this is just overkill.

- Some 10-car 465/6 formations have been replace by 10-car 376s, resulting
in no seating being available when the trains leave London Bridge in the
evenings at all (when previously there were plenty of spare seats).

In summary a pretty nasty "urban" train built by a train manufacturer that
should know better - how many years do we have to suffer these things again?

The only tangible benefits, currently, are that they are relatively free
from vandalism and are being kept clean. But how long will that last for...

A refurbished Networker or a 375/9 over a 376? Every time!

If a survey was conducted of a single service, comparing the 376 with, say,
a 375/9, I bet the 376 would lose out on passenger preference everytime -
even for those who have to stand. A major disappointment.

Rich

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
snip my own comments

Following up on that somewhat negative post, instead of building a new class
of train, I think with hindsight it would have been better to have:

- Completed the 12-car Networker project in the Kent Link area

- Lengthened all Charing Cross/Cannon St Kent Link peak trains by two
carriages or more, giving 10 or 12 car formations on virtually all services.

- Refurbished and modified the Networkers to allow for more room for
standing by doorways

- Placed a follow-on order for more 375/9 units to be used on Networker
routes, keeping them targeted at Gillingham/Gravesend/Sevenoaks trains when
possible.

OK, so that's not going to happen now, so to resolve the current situation I
suggest:

- Removal of the tip-up seats and proper seating installed

- An urgent rethink on the seating with new deeper upholstery supplied (and
not in a dreary grey fabric)

Rich

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:08:32 +0000, Rich Mallard wrote:

A refurbished Networker or a 375/9 over a 376? Every time!

If a survey was conducted of a single service, comparing the 376 with,
say, a 375/9, I bet the 376 would lose out on passenger preference
everytime - even for those who have to stand. A major disappointment.

Oh dear, losing out to a 375/9? Bad, very very bad. I'll miss a train and
wait from the next (admittedley 15 mins) to avoid a 375/9. Though on the
Tonbridge lines, the formations are usually 1-unit 375/9 + 1-2unit(s)
375/not-9 so a walk along the platform usually suffices.

I'll have to get on a 376 at Charing Cross and have a good look round but
they do look fairly grim.

Timbo

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:

What were Bombardier thinking of when they designed this??? They already
had a half-decent slimline seat design that's used in the 375/9, but oh
no, let's design something else even less comfortable.

Bombardier don't design the seats. They usually get them from Chapman
Seating, who did the Sprinters, etc for BR. Unfortunately due to the long
periods of inactivity (i.e. years when few or no new trains are built), the
company has gone bust on more than one occasion, leading to the inevitable
supply problems.

-=# Amos E Wolfe #=-

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:


In summary a pretty nasty "urban" train built by a train manufacturer that
should know better - how many years do we have to suffer these things
again?

I've never been on any of these new trains, so don't wish to comment on
them - my only observation is that all your criticisms relate to interior
design which was surely the choice of the TOC rather than the manufacturer.
You yourself note what you consider to be superior interior designs on
fleets of trains built by the same manufacturer for different TOCs, so I
think you should reconsider your damning criticism of the maufacturer.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"David Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:


In summary a pretty nasty "urban" train built by a train manufacturer
that
should know better - how many years do we have to suffer these things
again?

I've never been on any of these new trains, so don't wish to comment on
them - my only observation is that all your criticisms relate to interior
design which was surely the choice of the TOC rather than the
manufacturer.
You yourself note what you consider to be superior interior designs on
fleets of trains built by the same manufacturer for different TOCs, so I
think you should reconsider your damning criticism of the maufacturer.

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

Rich

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:08:32 +0000, Rich Mallard wrote:

A refurbished Networker or a 375/9 over a 376? Every time!

If a survey was conducted of a single service, comparing the 376 with,
say, a 375/9, I bet the 376 would lose out on passenger preference
everytime - even for those who have to stand. A major disappointment.

Oh dear, losing out to a 375/9? Bad, very very bad. ...

Yeah, I know, the 376 even makes the humble Networker feel like a luxury
mainline train. That probably says it all.

Rich

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

Rich Mallard wrote:
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if
anyone
else agrees with my observations:

- These trains have some of the most uncomfortable seating I have
ever
experienced, certainly the worst of any London-area commuter train.
There
is virtually no padding in the seat whatsoever, and the back itself
is
curiously upright and somewhat oddly shaped - as if the lumbar
support is
too high up.


I agree that the seating is rock-hard, myself being a regular user of
the North Kent Line.

They already had a half-decent slimline seat design that's used in
the 375/9, but oh no, let's design something else even less
comfortable.
Note that most of the seating on tube trains is actually quite
comfortable.


I personally think that the seating on the 'main line' Class 375 fleet
is unnecessarily hard. The 4 Cig seating is more comfortable in
comparison.

- Despite having hardly any seating, the atmosphere is quite
claustrophobic
because of the overly-high seat backs that obscure views of the rest
of the
carriage when seated.


I can understand your point concerning a claustrophobic atmosphere when
being seated: the seat backs are indeed high. However, when standing in
the vestibule area and walking down the carriages, there appeared to be
a wealth of space around me, somewhat more pleasant than the
Networkers.


- The windows feel as if they're tiny and high-up, giving a sense of
being
penned in.


Another interesting observation. The windows are indeed smaller than
those found on the Networker, although interior lighting is plentiful.
At the end of the day the objective was to create a new breed of train
to physically cram more people into, thus window design was presumably
not at the top of the list.

- The colour scheme is just grim. Sickly bright blue edges of the
carriages, dull grey seat fabrics, and an odd-patterned lino floor
that
looks more like it should be in a nursery school. I guess the
predominately
blue and yellow colours are an overhang from the Connex corporate
colour
scheme? :-( What a difference colours can make though - compare to
the
civilised green-themed interior of the Southern 377s.


A spill-over effect from the infamous days of Connex. It is clear that
the last thing a government-run franchise wants to do is waste more
time and money on applying new livieries to rolling stock when the
operation is soon (and unfortunately) going to be re-tendered. Applying
new liveries is not as expensive as it used to be, considering that the
whole lot is practically vinyl.


- There is woefully insufficient seating, particularly in the end
carriages
areas where there sections of just a few tip-up seats instead of
"proper"
seating. Okay, more standing space was needed, and 2x2 seating and
wider
doors has helped, but this is just overkill.
- Some 10-car 465/6 formations have been replace by 10-car 376s,
resulting
in no seating being available when the trains leave London Bridge in
the
evenings at all (when previously there were plenty of spare seats).


At the end of the day, I would personally rather have a spacious
standing space in a Class 376 during the peak, than a cramped area in a
Networker. However, during the off-peak I would probably be more
tempted to take a Networker, since the guarantee of acquiring a seat
which is more comfortable than the Class 376.


In summary a pretty nasty "urban" train built by a train manufacturer
that
should know better - how many years do we have to suffer these things
again?
The only tangible benefits, currently, are that they are relatively
free
from vandalism and are being kept clean. But how long will that last
for...


I have been asking myself that question also. They are remarkably
clean, as are many of the Networkers which have received the 'South
Eastern' logo, but keeping them free from vandalism will certainly be
an arduous task. Hopefully there is a scheme in place for this.

If a survey was conducted of a single service, comparing the 376
with, say,
a 375/9, I bet the 376 would lose out on passenger preference
everytime -
even for those who have to stand. A major disappointment.


I am not so sure about that. I was on a Class 375 going into London and
was having to stand in the vestibule area. As you well know, these
trains are not designed for having commuters crammed inside, quite the
contrary, but that was exactly the situation. The vestibule area was
just too small to accommodate people, and at Waterloo East more people
were trying to get on - it was a nightmare. Compare this with the Class
376, and the problems of this whole scenario are alleviated. Indeed, a
passenger is likely to take a Class 375/9 hands down on a journey of
long duration, but I suspect that the Class 376 would be preferred by
commuters on jam-packed lines such as those to Dartford.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"The InterCity" wrote in message
oups.com...

snipped stuff I agree with

I am not so sure about that. I was on a Class 375 going into London and
was having to stand in the vestibule area. As you well know, these
trains are not designed for having commuters crammed inside, quite the
contrary, but that was exactly the situation. The vestibule area was
just too small to accommodate people, and at Waterloo East more people
were trying to get on - it was a nightmare. Compare this with the Class
376, and the problems of this whole scenario are alleviated. Indeed, a
passenger is likely to take a Class 375/9 hands down on a journey of
long duration, but I suspect that the Class 376 would be preferred by
commuters on jam-packed lines such as those to Dartford.

I'm not so sure about that though - I use Bexley station on the Dartford
line via Sidcup and very much prefer a 375/9 over a 376. I think the 376
would probably be preferred by users of Hither Green, Lewisham, Blackheath,
Deptford, Greenwich etc, but I reckon when you get out to places such as
Abbey Wood, Welling, Sidcup and beyond, people don't want to slum it in
uncomfortable urban stock, particularly off-peak.

I find Bexley to Charing Cross in reality (ignoring timetable), is about 45
mins in the peak. For me, that is simply too long to be sitting on a badly
shaped seat that feels like a wooden bench, particularly when our friends
from Sevenoaks are zooming past on a 2x2 375 with a shorter journey time!

We seem to have two unfortunate extremes - the 376 designed for ultra-peak
wedged workings, and the 2x2 375 which seems to be designed for fairly long
distance off-peak journeys. So perhaps the 375/9 is the happy medium after
all :-)

Having said all that, there's still no excuse for making the 376 seats so
damn uncomfortable, that's just plain inexcusable. If there's gonna be less
seating, at least make it comfortable!

Rich

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"-=# Amos E Wolfe #=-" wrote in message
...

Bombardier don't design the seats. They usually get them from Chapman
Seating, who did the Sprinters, etc for BR. Unfortunately due to the long
periods of inactivity (i.e. years when few or no new trains are built),
the
company has gone bust on more than one occasion, leading to the inevitable
supply problems.


IIRC, after the last time, Bombardier purchased the former Chapman company
outright.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

Jack Taylor wrote:
IIRC, after the last time, Bombardier purchased the former Chapman company
outright.

That's right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/d...re/3330089.stm

[ The company said its seat supplier went into administration, causing
delays.

Bombardier has since bought out the troubled supplier ]

--
Darren

Sudbury Branch Line website: http://www.sudbury-branchline.co.uk
http://photos.darrenjohnson.co.uk

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

Rich Mallard wrote:
I'm not so sure about that though - I use Bexley station on the
Dartford
line via Sidcup and very much prefer a 375/9 over a 376. I think the
376
would probably be preferred by users of Hither Green, Lewisham,
Blackheath,
Deptford, Greenwich etc, but I reckon when you get out to places such
as
Abbey Wood, Welling, Sidcup and beyond, people don't want to slum it
in
uncomfortable urban stock, particularly off-peak.


However, an operator of the trains is not simply going to terminate a
Class 376 at those locations for the sake of changing the type of unit.

Of course, there is the alternative of embarking on a train at either
Farningham Road or Swanley, where you will be able to use Class 375s
and the occasional 4 Vep. The line speed is much greater, with fewer
stops, but from my experience, it is just as crowded during the peak as
the North Kent Lines are. That is not to say that Class 375s do not
traverse our native North Kent routes: it was only yesterday that I saw
one speed through Swanscombe. However, such movements are empty stock
to Slade Green Depot.

Having said all that, there's still no excuse for making the 376
seats so
damn uncomfortable, that's just plain inexcusable. If there's gonna
be less
seating, at least make it comfortable!


I am not fond of the lack of comfortable seating either, but our lines
have far more scheduled stops than the route to Sevenoaks (Tubs Hill)
and that via Swanley. It would seem uneconomical to be using what is
general acknowledged as 'main line' stock on our lines. If I am correct
in what I remember, then the Class 375/9 is an 'outer suburban' breed,
whereas the Class 376 is 'inner suburban'. The latter describes the
North Kent network up to at least Dartford. Plus, the Class 465/466
units still constitute the bulk of the off-peak diagrams, thus at least
we still have a comparatively more comfortable alternative. A few
Doncaster-refurbished Class 465s may even creep onto our lines as a
temporary measure, thus we have some hope.

We seem to have two unfortunate extremes - the 376 designed for
ultra-peak
wedged workings, and the 2x2 375 which seems to be designed for
fairly long
distance off-peak journeys. So perhaps the 375/9 is the happy medium
after
all :-)


London to Dartford = Inner suburban. Thus, that equals Class 376.
London to Sevenoaks & Tonbridge = Outer suburban. This equates to the
modest Class 375/9.
London to Dover = Long distance. Therefore, a Class 375, not including
the 375/9 derivative.

If Crossrail finally takes off, you will have the option of traversing
the Dartford Loop (using the existing Sidcup service via Slade Green
and Erith), and embarking on Crossrail stock at Abbey Wood. You will
have to hope these trains are more comfortable!

Just to add, it is good to see Bexley station upholding the Network
SouthEast tradition of red lamp posts!

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:



- Despite having hardly any seating, the atmosphere is quite
claustrophobic because of the overly-high seat backs that obscure views of
the rest of the carriage when seated.


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.

Funnily enough I saw the same "high capacity" seating on a three by two 375
the other day (even in 1st) - although I think they're replacing them
eventually.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

The InterCity wrote:

I can understand your point concerning a claustrophobic atmosphere when
being seated: the seat backs are indeed high. However, when standing in
the vestibule area and walking down the carriages, there appeared to be
a wealth of space around me, somewhat more pleasant than the
Networkers.

High seat backs are part of the ATOC requirements for
crashworthiness

http://217.33.37.196/docushare/dsweb...4/Avst9001.pdf

6.2 Transverse seats
Transverse seats shall be high backed. The top of the seat shall
be at least 25 mm above the level of the centre of gravity of the
head of a 95th percentile male when seated on a compressed seat
cushion. The seat back shall be continuous to provide support for
the heads of a 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male. The
support shall be sufficiently close to the head of a normally
seated person to prevent unacceptable rotation of the head.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in
:

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
snip my own comments

Following up on that somewhat negative post, instead of building a new
class of train, I think with hindsight it would have been better to
have:

- Completed the 12-car Networker project in the Kent Link area

- Lengthened all Charing Cross/Cannon St Kent Link peak trains by two
carriages or more, giving 10 or 12 car formations on virtually all
services.

- Refurbished and modified the Networkers to allow for more room for
standing by doorways

- Placed a follow-on order for more 375/9 units to be used on Networker
routes, keeping them targeted at Gillingham/Gravesend/Sevenoaks trains
when possible.

OK, so that's not going to happen now, so to resolve the current
situation I suggest:

- Removal of the tip-up seats and proper seating installed

- An urgent rethink on the seating with new deeper upholstery supplied
(and not in a dreary grey fabric)

Rich



Sounds sensible to me. But, if new trains had to be built, why on earth
build them with only 2 sets of doors per side ?! (The old standard DB S
Bahn EMU - class 420 - has 4 sets on each side of a 20.8m vehicle, its
replacement, the articulated class 423, 3 sets on a 15.5m vehicle)

David

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

I certainly agree about the seats: they are truly shocking! They're
only vaguely bearable if you sit bolt upright, and reading a book or
whatever seems to put a strain on your neck.

The brakes would appear to require some getting used to as well, with
some lurching stops on my daily trip home on the Barnehurst line...

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:40:39 GMT, Chris J Dixon wrote:

The support shall ... prevent unacceptable rotation of the head.

So much for having a conversation with the person sitting next to you...

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11857664.html
(M50079 gleaming white in its refurbished livery: Kings Norton, 1978)

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Roy Stilling" wrote in message
...
"Rich Mallard" wrote:

They already had a half-decent slimline seat design that's used in
the 375/9, but oh no, let's design something else even less comfortable.

*Worse* than the 375/9 seats? Do they have spikes on them???

If they were foam spikes, they'd be more comfortable, believe me.

I wondered if it was some kind of anti-vandal measure? Make the seats so
uncomfortable, no-one will want to travel on them at all unless they have to
(ie commuters).

How have we reached such a crazy situation? Doesn't anyone important in SET
have to travel on these things regularly? Obviously not!

Nick

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:40:39 GMT, Chris J Dixon wrote:

The support shall ... prevent unacceptable rotation of the head.

So much for having a conversation with the person sitting next to you...

Or looking out of the window...

Roger

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"James Farrar" wrote in message
news:opsl9je2b0wnvjb9@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

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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


"James Farrar" wrote in message
news:opsl9je2b0wnvjb9@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...

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

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.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"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?

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"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

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"ast444" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Well, yes, they're an "unfortunate" necessity for crush-loaded peak trains
perhaps, but that's of no comfort (literally) when you're travelling
shoulder-of-peak, off-peak or at weekends.

We can all agree (probably) on wider doorways, wider doors and at least part
of the carriage having 2x2 seating, but the 376 is a failure in terms of
basic comfort. I also find the "perch" seats useless too - wrong height for
me anyway.

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.

With modified seating let's hope!

...

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

ast444 wrote:
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.

But one can't just assume that the removal of seats creates more
standing room. The 376s aren't the worst example (perhaps the LU
Jubilee or the twenty experimental DLR vehicles claim the prize), but
there are many cases where spaces are provided for feet, but not the
top of the body, creating areas where one person can stand where there
could have been two seats.

Modern stock, for some reason, has to be full of great chunky bulkheads
and obstructions which people can't lean against except at an extremely
painful angle. Standing passengers need to be able to tuck themselves
into corners. Modern layouts force people away from the edges of the
vehicles so that they can only dangle from the ceiling.

There are safety implications to wide open areas where people have
nothing to hold on to or lean against, particularly shorter people.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

Nick wrote:
"826" wrote in message
om...

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


This is a very interesting post. However, what Connex did does not
surprise me. In hindsight it seems, in my opinion, that they did their
best to kill off rail travel in Kent, although for those commuters to
London, there was little choice but to accept the poor service.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:

- These trains have some of the most uncomfortable seating I have ever
experienced, snip
Rich


If I've got my facts right my Hastings service uses the 375 but there is a
"high density" runt version with the same rock hard 2 + 3 wide seats.
Totally uncomfortable after 10 minutes let alone 1:40. Fortunately I've only
had to endure them once. I'm starting to miss the old slam door cattle
trucks slap around face whoops what am I saying, snap out of it.... one
thing about the more comfortable 375s, There's less leg room on the rowed
seating than on most airplanes I've been on - I'm only 6ft and its pretty
uncomfortable. Mind the tabled seats are very nice.

Paul

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

If I've got my facts right my Hastings service uses the 375 but there
is a
"high density" runt version with the same rock hard 2 + 3 wide seats.
Totally uncomfortable after 10 minutes let alone 1:40. Fortunately
I've only
had to endure them once. I'm starting to miss the old slam door cattle

trucks slap around face whoops what am I saying, snap out of it....
one
thing about the more comfortable 375s, There's less leg room on the
rowed
seating than on most airplanes I've been on - I'm only 6ft and its
pretty
uncomfortable. Mind the tabled seats are very nice.

No attempt to use specific stock on specific South Eastern routes ever
seems to last long. Whatever services the VEPs were felt suitable for,
they seemed to get used on the longest distance routes. The same seems
to be happening with the 375/9s.

When the CIGs were transferred from Brighton, they were meant to be
concentrated on the Hastings route, but this didn't last long.

All the talk of using specific stock on specific types of service is
meaningless on the south eastern where a lot of different types of
stock seem to be have been used indiscrimminately for as long as I can
remember.

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

"MIG" wrote in message
oups.com...
No attempt to use specific stock on specific South Eastern routes ever
seems to last long. Whatever services the VEPs were felt suitable for,
they seemed to get used on the longest distance routes. The same seems
to be happening with the 375/9s.

When the CIGs were transferred from Brighton, they were meant to be
concentrated on the Hastings route, but this didn't last long.

All the talk of using specific stock on specific types of service is
meaningless on the south eastern where a lot of different types of
stock seem to be have been used indiscrimminately for as long as I can
remember.

That reminds me a couple of years ago when Connex (gazoontite) ran out of
trains and I jumped on that green DEMU at Charing Cross for my journey
home - bit like being in your front room but only narrower.

Paul

SET 376 - A big disappointment
 

David Jackman wrote:

The old standard DB S
Bahn EMU - class 420 - has 4 sets on each side of a 20.8m vehicle,
its
replacement, the articulated class 423, 3 sets on a 15.5m vehicle


And exactly no overall change to the unit - a 3 car 420 is 67400 mm
long with 12 door pairs per unit - and 423 are 4 car artic also 67400
mm long also with 12 door pairs per unit.


I'd like to have seen 376s built like DB 423s. Far too radical for UK
national railways (or too German for Connex as was) and far too
innovative for uk.railway to ever accept such a device


--
Nick