Funny you should mention it - happened to me this afternoon (1233 from
Stevenage wedged). So on getting home, I emailed FCC and about 20
minutes ago (yes, 0030 on a Sunday morning), got the following reply:

I think I was on an earlier one and it still was rammed (12.29/Potters
Bar). Not even a stand in first class, you physically couldn't have got on
the thing! It left about 30 people behind. Their reply is fine as far as
sympathy goes but short on action

I know short units double the fleet maintenence intervals but it shouldn't
be at passenger detriment. Footy demand is easily planned and addressed but
better would be make them all 8's off peak and weekends.

I understand during peaks given available stock, paths and platform lengths
overcrowding can occur and there isn't an easy or instant answer. But no
excuse making people stand off peak and weekends just to help their
servicing costs! These off peak and weekend people are more likely to have
paid for tickets rather than commuters travelling 'for free'. Just the sort
of people the railway should be nice to - those who can use alternatives,
rather than commuters who are pretty much forced onto the crowded and
standing-room railways with no viable alternative.

D

Dave Plumb wrote:

I know short units double the fleet maintenence intervals but it
shouldn't be at passenger detriment. Footy demand is easily planned
and addressed but better would be make them all 8's off peak and
weekends.

At off-peak times, shorter trains make women and others safer from crime.

Funny you should mention it - happened to me this afternoon (1233
from Stevenage wedged). So on getting home, I emailed FCC and about
20 minutes ago (yes, 0030 on a Sunday morning), got the following

The new timetable is out and my early morning train that isn't packed has
been retimed (0656 ex Potters Bar) so that's ten minutes less in bloody bed
The earlier fast (0649) is standing room only by the time it gets here,
how can that be at 7am? Oh yes, four cars ...

No trains sat/sun from 31st March too. Deep joy! As a shift worker the car
is now starting to make more sense.

D

On 18 Nov 2006 16:52:34 -0800, wrote:

Dave Plumb wrote:
I don't think FCC are much different to WAGN. Twice on saturday lunchtimes
I've had to wait for following slow (317) services because the 4 car unit
was packed with Arsenal supporters (while the P'boro and Camb services whiz
through with 8 cars and half empty!).

Funny you should mention it - happened to me this afternoon (1233 from
Stevenage wedged). So on getting home, I emailed FCC and about 20
minutes ago (yes, 0030 on a Sunday morning), got the following reply: -

"Thank you for your email regarding your journey with us on 18
November
2006. Please accept my apologies for the difficulties you
encountered
whilst attempting to travel on the 1233 service and whilst
actually
travelling on the 1239 service between Stevenage and London Kings
Cross.

I am sorry for the discomfort that you experienced during the
course of
your journey because of the crowded conditions on the train. We want
our
customers to travel in comfort and appreciate the anxiety that is
caused by
such conditions.

So provide some extra carriages rather than have them sit in Hornsey
depot!

We aim to deploy our current fleet in the most effective way
possible in
order to meet the anticipated demand for each service. As many of
our
customers hold fully flexible tickets we cannot always provide the
amount
of capacity required. We seek to ensure that all our trains have at
least
the advertised amount of carriages and our resources are
concentrated on
those services that we know to be the busiest.

I particularly like the comment that seeks to blame passengers because
they buy fully flexible tickets rather than being forced to buy cheapo
discount tickets that restrict them to one departure. How sad that this
might cause FCC a bit of trouble in matching capacity to demand!

Do they imagine they are running a business class only airline or a
railway? As everyone else has said the crowding being referred to is
entirely predictable and it would take little effort to provide
appropriate additional capacity.

All this franchise is about is screwing as much money out of passengers
for the least possible expenditure in providing the actual service.
Thank goodness I only use it on rare occasions.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

All this franchise is about is screwing as much money out of
passengers for the least possible expenditure in providing the actual
service. Thank goodness I only use it on rare occasions.

Not exactly, according to a First group employee I know on Saturday. The
Government is about is screwing as much money out of passengers for the
least possible expenditure in providing the actual service, sadly. First
have no choice but to do their bidding.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

If you are referring to the Thameslink route then the Class 319s date from
the late 1980s, when they were built to replace the original BedPan
electrification Class 317s (which went to what is now the Silverlink
County route for a while before moving to Great Northern and more recently
'one' Railway). The 319s have never been particularly good for the job.
The accommodation is cramped, the seats are way too low and far too
closely fitted (I'm 6' 5" and when I sit down - in the bay seats, I can't
get into the face-to-back ones - my knees are usually about two inches
from the facing seat cushion).

When they were running Southern, Connex managed to turn seven of these units
into something quite respectable (319/2) for their Brighton Express
services - the biggest difference being that they have a far better design
of seat. Meanwhile, the Thameslink route operators have turned out numerous
refurbishments (see the link below for the latest version) all of which have
avoided doing anything about the seats, which are the single worst design
feature of these units.

http://timsrailpics.fotopic.net/p35508592.html

I accept that the full 319/2 treatment would probably involve too great a
reduction in seating capacity, but replacement of the seats with something
like those that SWT and Southern are putting into their 455s would be a huge
improvement.

D A Stocks

In article , (David A
Stocks) wrote:

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

If you are referring to the Thameslink route then the Class 319s
date from the late 1980s, when they were built to replace the
original BedPan electrification Class 317s (which went to what is
now the Silverlink County route for a while before moving to
Great Northern and more recently 'one' Railway). The 319s have
never been particularly good for the job. The accommodation is
cramped, the seats are way too low and far too closely fitted
(I'm 6' 5" and when I sit down - in the bay seats, I can't get
into the face-to-back ones - my knees are usually about two
inches from the facing seat cushion).

When they were running Southern, Connex managed to turn seven of
these units into something quite respectable (319/2) for their
Brighton Express services - the biggest difference being that they
have a far better design of seat. Meanwhile, the Thameslink route
operators have turned out numerous refurbishments (see the link
below for the latest version) all of which have avoided doing
anything about the seats, which are the single worst design feature
of these units.

http://timsrailpics.fotopic.net/p35508592.html

I accept that the full 319/2 treatment would probably involve too
great a reduction in seating capacity, but replacement of the seats
with something like those that SWT and Southern are putting into
their 455s would be a huge improvement.

Are the seven 319/2 units part of Roger Ford's "Selhurst 13"?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I accept that the full 319/2 treatment would probably involve too
great a reduction in seating capacity, but replacement of the seats
with something like those that SWT and Southern are putting into
their 455s would be a huge improvement.

Are the seven 319/2 units part of Roger Ford's "Selhurst 13"?

Yes.