London Banter - View Single Post

boltar2003@boltar.world · January 11th 13, 08:47 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:41:40 +0000
Philip wrote:
On 10/01/2013 12:29, d wrote:
Nore than just that. They had a shed load of dot matrix displays installed
on the trains with the accompanying wiring and computers. That couldn't have
been cheap. Why do all that to a train you're going to scrap 10 years later?
Its an utter waste of money.

No! No it isn't. 10 Years between refurb/refresh/replacment cycles is
absolutely ideal in my view and needs to happen more often. We've got
plently of nasty, decrepit rolling stock that looks well over due
similar treatment on the national railway network. Keeping and making
people travel in the original D stock environment for another 10 years
would have been a scandal.

Why? What exactly was so wrong with it that a good clean wouldn't have sorted?
Apart from the information systems most refurbs IMO were utterly pointless.
They usually ended up just reducing the number of seats with the usual
bull**** disabled access reasons given. As a former daily piccadilly line
user I wasn't thrilled about the seating capacity of the trains dropping
by something like 20% due to the refurb they had in the 90s. And anyone who
says it increased standing capacity is talking through their arse.

B2003