On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Kevin

On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

Pyromancer wrote:
On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. 376s have been plying their
trade very successfully on Southeastern for the last three years - the
proposed 378 is not that significantly different. I'd rather stand on a
purpose-designed 378 with plenty of grab-rails than on a wedged 313 with
virtually none.

On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:
On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. 376s have been plying their
trade very successfully on Southeastern for the last three years - the
proposed 378 is not that significantly different. I'd rather stand on a
purpose-designed 378 with plenty of grab-rails than on a wedged 313 with
virtually none.



I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!

On Jul 4, 11:20 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!



Yeah, that's what I meant about leaning at right-angles to each other
if both people have legs.

They would be much better without the transverse chunky bit and
withouth the huge chunky ridge either side of the door bay which
limits the perch space along the edge to about one and a half bums
(therefore one, unless people are very friendly), when the space from
doors to seats would easily allow two bums if it wasn't for that
obstruction.

Even better, there could be two flip-up seats. I think that a leaning
person's legs splay out further than feet tucked under a seat,
particularly when the tilt-like profile of the coaches prevents
leaning back to balance.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.


You've not been on a rebuilt District Line train yet then?

Paul

Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone
will miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone will
miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Seems to me that they could double the length of the trains and they would
still be full but they will add one coach and put in longitudinal seats.
Maybe if Ken wasn't spending so much money on the ELL he might have the
money to do it.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Don't worry! The passenger numbers will decrease for a while. How so you
say? TfL will install gates where there presently are none and hopefully
have more grippers on the line - so the multitudinous bands of NLL fare
dodgers, for it is they, will have to resort to another mode of transport.

ESB