Basil Jet wrote on 23 Oct 2015 at 20:47 ...
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.

The S stock signs are indeed neat and tidy, but are above the windows.
See http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1300429a.jpg
The display alternates between the line name and the destination.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 2015\10\23 21:59, Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 23 Oct 2015 at 20:47 ...
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.

The S stock signs are indeed neat and tidy, but are above the windows.
See http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1300429a.jpg
The display alternates between the line name and the destination.

Thanks. It's a shame it doesn't just display the destination, in green,
yellow or pink.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\23 21:59, Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 23 Oct 2015 at 20:47 ...
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.

The S stock signs are indeed neat and tidy, but are above the windows.
See http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1300429a.jpg
The display alternates between the line name and the destination.

Thanks. It's a shame it doesn't just display the destination, in green,
yellow or pink.

Yes, that would be a clear improvement. I've seen multicolour destination
boards on trams in other countries.

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

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.

It's in the body side above a window. I don't understand why the others are
so intrusive and need to take up window space though they are larger
displays I think.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:04:40 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

Thanks. It's a shame it doesn't just display the destination, in green,
yellow or pink.

Yes, that would be a clear improvement. I've seen multicolour destination
boards on trams in other countries.

Provided you can actually distinguish the colours and understand their
use. A pointless change, for some, if you can't tell the colours
apart or get them confused.

Surely one colour and the train saying / displaying the name of the
line it is working is the more inclusive and sensible option? Perhaps
that's why things are done that way?


The name of the line isn't enough. You need the actual destination,
particularly with the District or Met lines. I would have thought that
white text on an appropriate colour background would be best.

On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
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.


Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:


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.


Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

I'm not sure how you can blame decisions on seat comfort that were taken
under Labour governments on Thatcher? I wouldn't blame any particular
government for things like that, but if you must blame a government, surely
the decisions were taken in the Brown era?

Of course what we can thank the Thatcher government for are the JLE and
DLR.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:26:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 23 October 2015 17:04:57 UTC+1, 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.

The high water mark for comfort on ordinary stock was Mk1 first class
compartments - the compartments are actually more comfortable than the
open firsts, as the seat bases in the compartments are also sprung,
whereas the opens are not - when the Mk1s were built, proper 1st class
always meant compartments, first opens were basically dining cars.

Everything since then has been a downgrade in comfort.

First Class is something I did not enjoy back in the 50s, 60, and 70s.
However, I do recall standard class Mk 1s as being comfortable enough.
It would be churlish to criticize the various iterations of the Mk 2.
They were a work in progress and each version was an improvement.

The HST Mk 3s in their original format were outstanding. I remember
my first journey in one from Reading. The comfort was notable as was
the acceleration. And, I enjoyed the new style buffet.

Since then none of the refurbishments have taken them anywhere near
their original standard of comfort.

In 1994 I moved to Los Angeles after living back in the UK for six
years. AT the first opportunity I took a ride on the brand new Blue
Line to Long Beach. One of my first observations was how
uncomfortable the seating was. The seats in LA Metro cars are not
particularly big and are basically GRP with the thinnest layer of
upholstering.

"Aha" I thought "At least back in the UK the seats are much more
comfortable, even on the London Underground!". :-)

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:44:15 -0500,
wrote:

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.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.

Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.

1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways. Conversely they encouraged immigration of
unqualified low skilled labour. This caused a population increase
mainly in the London area.

We now have a government which for all of its many faults is trying to
come to grips with these issues. We are already seeing great
improvement. But, these things will take time. New routes are being
built. And, new rolling stock is on order.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:44:15 -0500,
wrote:

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.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.

Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.

1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways.

In a system run by private enterprise, surely it should have been the
private companies (Railtrack, the TOCs, the ROSCOs) that should have
invested in the railways?

But the private companies have frequently got it wrong, such as not
foreseeing that increases in frequency would also increase demand (e.g.
Virgin Cross Country and TransPennine when they acquired new trains).
--
Jeremy Double