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

"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

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

"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 #=-

"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.

"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

"Tim S" wrote in message
news
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

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.

"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

"-=# 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.