I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

--
Spud

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack
of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack
of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up
by a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when
they have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text
display is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally
occupies half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the
Caterham line and on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a
window for a few inches of display seems to be the norm now. Do train
designers even know what windows are for?

I'm surprised you've not noticed the same on all the Electrostars and
Turbostars as well as the Desiros, but not on the S stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack
of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether
its what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space,
a lack of handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would
wake the dead and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are
too narrow for anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

Seats? Luxury! I remember them. Nowadays we have to stand.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2015\10\23 17:17, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up
by a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when
they have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text
display is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally
occupies half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the
Caterham line and on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a
window for a few inches of display seems to be the norm now. Do train
designers even know what windows are for?

I'm surprised you've not noticed the same on all the Electrostars and
Turbostars as well as the Desiros, but not on the S stock.

I did notice that the S stock have a tidy sign above the door, which is
where I'd put it.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack
of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.


No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.