Recliner wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Ah, the wonders of PPI schemes... Of course, initially the lack of
seating was justified by the higher frequency and shorter running
times that were planned to be introduced at the same time, thanks to
the new signalling system


Gordon Brown's PPI was always going to be a disaster. That much was
clearly apparent even before it started. Many have said Brown
insisted on it out of sheer spite to ensure that Ken Livingstone could
not gain political capital from the improvements to the Underground.

But after the PPI failed, there was still an opportunity to do
something about the seating. You have to wonder what all the people
are doing whose non-jobs were preserved after the PFI fell apart. They
are employed expensively by Transport for London to do what appears to
be f*** all.

These are truly dreadful trains for the Metropolitan Line. Perhaps,
before too long, someone will see sense and order proper seating for
them. But I don't hold out much hope, and until then, I will use
Chiltern, London Midland or my car.

In article , ()
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 13:26, Bruce wrote:
Charles wrote:
wrote:
" wrote:
The doorway designs on the S-8s are such that it is difficult to
stand next to them the way one would on an A-stock train.

When is D-Day for the A-stocks, BTW?

And, as I understand: Gone are the high backed seats,

Gone are a lot of seats.

I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Coupled with the eye-watering increase in the price of Travelcards
from Amersham, the increasing provision of S Stock has caused me to
rethink my modes of travel to and from London.

If I am going somewhere that involves entering the Congestion Charge
zone, I use Chiltern from Aylesbury or Stoke Mandeville or London
Midland from Tring. If I am going somewhere that doesn't, I drive.

So far this year, I haven't used the train at all.

It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

I expect there will be even fewer transverse seats on the S7s, if any at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

Recliner wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Ah, the wonders of PPI schemes... Of course, initially the lack of
seating was justified by the higher frequency and shorter running
times that were planned to be introduced at the same time, thanks to
the new signalling system

Gordon Brown's PPI was always going to be a disaster. That much was
clearly apparent even before it started. Many have said Brown
insisted on it out of sheer spite to ensure that Ken Livingstone could
not gain political capital from the improvements to the Underground.

But after the PPI failed, there was still an opportunity to do
something about the seating. You have to wonder what all the people
are doing whose non-jobs were preserved after the PFI fell apart. They
are employed expensively by Transport for London to do what appears to
be f*** all.

These are truly dreadful trains for the Metropolitan Line. Perhaps,
before too long, someone will see sense and order proper seating for
them. But I don't hold out much hope, and until then, I will use
Chiltern, London Midland or my car.

I've told you a million times - don't exaggerate!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:24:35 +0000, "
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 13:26, Bruce wrote:
Charles wrote:

wrote:
" wrote:
The doorway designs on the S-8s are such that it is difficult to stand
next to them the way one would on an A-stock train.

When is D-Day for the A-stocks, BTW?

And, as I understand: Gone are the high backed seats,


Gone are a lot of seats.


I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Coupled with the eye-watering increase in the price of Travelcards
from Amersham, the increasing provision of S Stock has caused me to
rethink my modes of travel to and from London.

If I am going somewhere that involves entering the Congestion Charge
zone, I use Chiltern from Aylesbury or Stoke Mandeville or London
Midland from Tring. If I am going somewhere that doesn't, I drive.

So far this year, I haven't used the train at all.


It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

They do. The S7s will have even fewer seats per car, all arranged
longitudinally (like a 378). That's the way you'll be able to spot a
seven-car S8 train, as may be deployed on other SSLs before the true
S7s come off the production line.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:40:00 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Recliner wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Ah, the wonders of PPI schemes... Of course, initially the lack of
seating was justified by the higher frequency and shorter running
times that were planned to be introduced at the same time, thanks to
the new signalling system


Gordon Brown's PPI was always going to be a disaster. That much was
clearly apparent even before it started. Many have said Brown
insisted on it out of sheer spite to ensure that Ken Livingstone could
not gain political capital from the improvements to the Underground.

But after the PPI failed, there was still an opportunity to do
something about the seating. You have to wonder what all the people
are doing whose non-jobs were preserved after the PFI fell apart. They
are employed expensively by Transport for London to do what appears to
be f*** all.

I wonder if Bombardier was entitled to some draconian penalty if the
spec was changed in any way? After all, once Metronet had collapsed,
Bombardier had no reason to play ball.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:50:09 -0600,
wrote:

In article , ()
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 13:26, Bruce wrote:
Charles wrote:
wrote:
" wrote:
The doorway designs on the S-8s are such that it is difficult to
stand next to them the way one would on an A-stock train.

When is D-Day for the A-stocks, BTW?

And, as I understand: Gone are the high backed seats,

Gone are a lot of seats.

I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Coupled with the eye-watering increase in the price of Travelcards
from Amersham, the increasing provision of S Stock has caused me to
rethink my modes of travel to and from London.

If I am going somewhere that involves entering the Congestion Charge
zone, I use Chiltern from Aylesbury or Stoke Mandeville or London
Midland from Tring. If I am going somewhere that doesn't, I drive.

So far this year, I haven't used the train at all.

It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

I expect there will be even fewer transverse seats on the S7s, if any at all.

That's right, none at all, just like the C stock after refurbishment
and the 378s. It's amazing that the centre bay of transverse seats
survived the D stock refurbishment.

Recliner wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Recliner wrote:
Ah, the wonders of PPI schemes... Of course, initially the lack of
seating was justified by the higher frequency and shorter running
times that were planned to be introduced at the same time, thanks to
the new signalling system


Gordon Brown's PPI was always going to be a disaster. That much was
clearly apparent even before it started. Many have said Brown
insisted on it out of sheer spite to ensure that Ken Livingstone could
not gain political capital from the improvements to the Underground.

But after the PPI failed, there was still an opportunity to do
something about the seating. You have to wonder what all the people
are doing whose non-jobs were preserved after the PFI fell apart. They
are employed expensively by Transport for London to do what appears to
be f*** all.

I wonder if Bombardier was entitled to some draconian penalty if the
spec was changed in any way? After all, once Metronet had collapsed,
Bombardier had no reason to play ball.


I would not be surprised. Judging by the horror stories from PFI
schemes in the NHS, with even slight alterations costing an order of
magnitude more than they reasonably should, I bet Bombardier have
Transport for London over a barrel.

But the specification for the seating layout must have come from TfL
in the first place, which is why I have no sympathy for them. When
the PFI went tits up, they had the chance to re-shape the contracts so
they more closely resembled those used for conventional methods of
procurement.

But TfL didn't do that. Instead, TfL took over the PFI contractor and
had two separate bodies of management, one in TfL and one in the PFI
contractor, who was by then owned by TfL. The amount of duplication
is near total, so around half of the people are doing non-jobs.

No doubt a lot of hot air is being produced, emails are being
exchanged and paper is flying about everywhere as the people in these
non-jobs try in vain to appear as though they are doing something
useful. But if Facebook was banned, they would probably find
themselves with nothing to do.

Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:24:35 +0000, "
wrote:
It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

They do. The S7s will have even fewer seats per car, all arranged
longitudinally (like a 378). That's the way you'll be able to spot a
seven-car S8 train, as may be deployed on other SSLs before the true
S7s come off the production line.


I profoundly disagree that the S8s reflect the services they are being
used on - the Metropolitan Line to Chesham and Amersham.

The S8s may be slightly better than the S7s in that respect, but they
are still a very long way from what is needed.

On 26/02/2012 21:44, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:24:35 +0000, "
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 13:26, Bruce wrote:
Charles wrote:

wrote:
" wrote:
The doorway designs on the S-8s are such that it is difficult to stand
next to them the way one would on an A-stock train.

When is D-Day for the A-stocks, BTW?

And, as I understand: Gone are the high backed seats,


Gone are a lot of seats.


I can't really see the point of this for the Metropolitan. The
Circle/Hammersmith and City, yes. The District, perhaps. But these
trains appear completely unsuited to Amersham and Chesham services
because of their comparative lack of seating and its comparative lack
of comfort. How anyone could select such trains for the Metropolitan
simply beggars belief.

Coupled with the eye-watering increase in the price of Travelcards
from Amersham, the increasing provision of S Stock has caused me to
rethink my modes of travel to and from London.

If I am going somewhere that involves entering the Congestion Charge
zone, I use Chiltern from Aylesbury or Stoke Mandeville or London
Midland from Tring. If I am going somewhere that doesn't, I drive.

So far this year, I haven't used the train at all.


It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

They do. The S7s will have even fewer seats per car, all arranged
longitudinally (like a 378). That's the way you'll be able to spot a
seven-car S8 train, as may be deployed on other SSLs before the true
S7s come off the production line.

Will S7s have any even slightly distinguishing exterior features from S8s?

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:24:35 +0000, "
wrote:
It was always my impression that the S8s would have different seating
arrangements from the S7s, to reflect the areas that they serve.

They do. The S7s will have even fewer seats per car, all arranged
longitudinally (like a 378). That's the way you'll be able to spot a
seven-car S8 train, as may be deployed on other SSLs before the true
S7s come off the production line.

I profoundly disagree that the S8s reflect the services they are being
used on - the Metropolitan Line to Chesham and Amersham.

The S8s may be slightly better than the S7s in that respect, but they
are still a very long way from what is needed.

S8s are also being used on Uxbridge and Watford services you know!

--
Colin Rosenstiel