wrote:

On Apr 4, 9:39 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Argosy


Idle curiosity, what route and when [or was it a military flight ?].


I didn't keep notes, so from memory I think the route was probably Lydd
to Le Touquet and this would have been in the 1962-65 period. It was a
scheduled flight, either by BEA or a subsidiary. The return trip was by
ferry. My grandfather did a lot of work with BEA and the family got
some cheap fares with that airline and its subsidiaries, especially
Cambrian Airways.


I assume you mean the 1950/1960s AW Argosy pass/cargo twin fuselage
4xDart device


That's the one. The nose of the fuselage opened to allow vehicles to be
loaded on and off via ramps. As a small boy I found it absolutely
fascinating.

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern
Jubilee and Northern line trains that came from the same factory. I
certainly wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost
any modern car[1].

OTOH, I'd avoid any
pre-Mk.3 train like the plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to
shun anything pre-158. If I'm sitting in something as a passenger,
then ride comfort comes very high up the list, and I want seats that
don't wreck my back (equally vital in a car, of course, but then the
'67 design wins there as well, with better seats than anything else
I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger, then wind noise and
suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock really do win
out there[1], as well as providing what's generall/y a nicer
passenger environment.

I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to Swanage
and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious shiny wood.
The plush seats were a lot more comfortable than on a Mk 3 or 4, with
large windows perfectly aligned with the seats. Yes, the ride does get
lively when you get near t0 100mph, and there's no air-conditioning, but
it's a very pleasant experience.

On Apr 5, 8:39 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

to Le Touquet


Shoreham to le Touquet ceased in Feb.2009 when SkySouth cased
operations. Not sure but think that might have been the only recent
schedlued service itno Le Touquet, and certainly SkySouth the only
routes from Shoreham.

I had had an idea to go and do the route some tme just for the novelty
value of a Piper PA-31 Navajo.

--
Nick

Tony Polson wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 4, 9:39 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Argosy


Idle curiosity, what route and when [or was it a military flight ?].


I didn't keep notes, so from memory I think the route was probably Lydd
to Le Touquet and this would have been in the 1962-65 period. It was a
scheduled flight, either by BEA or a subsidiary. The return trip was by
ferry. My grandfather did a lot of work with BEA and the family got
some cheap fares with that airline and its subsidiaries, especially
Cambrian Airways.


I assume you mean the 1950/1960s AW Argosy pass/cargo twin fuselage
4xDart device


That's the one. The nose of the fuselage opened to allow vehicles to be
loaded on and off via ramps. As a small boy I found it absolutely
fascinating.


As a postscript, could it have been another similar type of aircraft
with an opening nose? A Google search revealed the Carvair (a converted
Douglas DC-4) and the Bristol 170 Freighter, both operated by Silver
City Airways, later British United Air Ferries, on the Lydd-Le Touquet
route.

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern
Jubilee and Northern line trains that came from the same factory. I
certainly wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost
any modern car[1].

OTOH, I'd avoid any
pre-Mk.3 train like the plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to
shun anything pre-158. If I'm sitting in something as a passenger,
then ride comfort comes very high up the list, and I want seats that
don't wreck my back (equally vital in a car, of course, but then the
'67 design wins there as well, with better seats than anything else
I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger, then wind noise and
suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock really do win

I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to Swanage
and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious shiny wood.

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

And then there's the noise, harshness and vibration, all there in copious
proportions. I can understand how some (not me!) would like this as an
occasional novelty, but it's not up to the job of day-to-day transport.

And no, polished wood doth not a quality package make (unless it's a boat
by Fairey Marine). The aforementioned 1967 (design..) car was blessedly
free of such nonsense.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:39 pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Argosy


Idle curiosity, what route and when [or was it a military flight ?].

I assume you mean the 1950/1960s AW Argosy pass/cargo twin fuselage
4xDart device, not the 1920s AW Argosy biplane.

Dunno why airplane makers recycle names for very different products -
Lockheed Electra was another one.

Why not? Everyone else does it, sometimes causing much confusion (as with
those weho still believe that Hardwicke was built in 187-whatever).

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:15:11 +0100, (Andrew Robert
Breen) wrote:

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

Steamed-up windows is what kills it for me. I like looking out. This
is a real downer on bus travel - double glazing would be very nice,
though the top-deck extractor fans used in London are also quite good
at preventing steaming up and that typical "rotting passenger" smell,
if a little noisy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
Recliner wrote:


I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to
Swanage and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious
shiny wood.

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

And then there's the noise, harshness and vibration, all there in
copious proportions. I can understand how some (not me!) would like
this as an occasional novelty, but it's not up to the job of
day-to-day transport.

And no, polished wood doth not a quality package make (unless it's a
boat by Fairey Marine). The aforementioned 1967 (design..) car was
blessedly free of such nonsense.

I suspect we're just arguing about the subjective comfort of various
seating designs. I'm happy to agree that modern intercity trains are
quieter, smoother and air-conditioned, so it's just a case of which seat
designs we prefer. As far as I'm concerned, no train seats come close to
matching the comfort and adjustability of my car's seats, and none let
me adjust the temperature to suit myself, so it's just a case of which
trains have the worst seats compared to my car or a good business class
airline seat. But, with the exception of the awful Mallard standard
class seats, I can tolerate any of them for an hour or two without
complaint, and the best of them for quite a few hours.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
Recliner wrote:

I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to
Swanage and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious
shiny wood.

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

And then there's the noise, harshness and vibration, all there in
copious proportions. I can understand how some (not me!) would like
this as an occasional novelty, but it's not up to the job of
day-to-day transport.

And no, polished wood doth not a quality package make (unless it's a
boat by Fairey Marine). The aforementioned 1967 (design..) car was
blessedly free of such nonsense.

I suspect we're just arguing about the subjective comfort of
various seating designs. I'm happy to agree that modern intercity
trains are quieter, smoother and air-conditioned, so it's just a
case of which seat designs we prefer. As far as I'm concerned, no
train seats come close to matching the comfort and adjustability of
my car's seats, and none let me adjust the temperature to suit
myself, so it's just a case of which trains have the worst seats
compared to my car or a good business class airline seat. But, with
the exception of the awful Mallard standard class seats, I can
tolerate any of them for an hour or two without complaint, and the
best of them for quite a few hours.

I can't say I have any problems with the Mallard seats personally. I'm
tall and therefore bit fussier than some. OTOH I hate airline seats with
a vengeance, mainly because they are so claustrophobic.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message

In article ,

I suspect we're just arguing about the subjective comfort of
various seating designs. I'm happy to agree that modern intercity
trains are quieter, smoother and air-conditioned, so it's just a
case of which seat designs we prefer. As far as I'm concerned, no
train seats come close to matching the comfort and adjustability of
my car's seats, and none let me adjust the temperature to suit
myself, so it's just a case of which trains have the worst seats
compared to my car or a good business class airline seat. But, with
the exception of the awful Mallard standard class seats, I can
tolerate any of them for an hour or two without complaint, and the
best of them for quite a few hours.

I can't say I have any problems with the Mallard seats personally. I'm
tall and therefore bit fussier than some. OTOH I hate airline seats
with a vengeance, mainly because they are so claustrophobic.

I think the problem with modern train seats is that they have little
padding and little or no adjustment -- if the shape happens to suit your
shape, they're very comfortable. If they don't, it soon gets painful,
and there's no way round it.

Older seats were deeply sprung, and it was less essential that they
fitted your shape exactly. Car seats are highly adjustable, and in most
cases can be made to fit your shape, rather than vice versa.

I agree about claustrophobic tombstone seats, though that's different to
seat comfort.