"ast444" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think we're kind of missing the point. Rush hour are what these
trains are designed for. Although I agree with the hard seating and the
OTT disabled areas, these trains work very well.

Well, yes, they're an "unfortunate" necessity for crush-loaded peak trains
perhaps, but that's of no comfort (literally) when you're travelling
shoulder-of-peak, off-peak or at weekends.

We can all agree (probably) on wider doorways, wider doors and at least part
of the carriage having 2x2 seating, but the 376 is a failure in terms of
basic comfort. I also find the "perch" seats useless too - wrong height for
me anyway.

Networkers get crowded
easily and it is logic that you could get more people standing. I can
see the 376 concept being applied to all London Inner Suburban line
(incl North London Line and euston-watford). Look at the refurbed 455s
for SWT.

With modified seating let's hope!

...

ast444 wrote:
I think we're kind of missing the point. Rush hour are what these
trains are designed for. Although I agree with the hard seating and
the
OTT disabled areas, these trains work very well. Networkers get
crowded
easily and it is logic that you could get more people standing. I can
see the 376 concept being applied to all London Inner Suburban line
(incl North London Line and euston-watford). Look at the refurbed
455s
for SWT.
I think that many people (including me) to a certain extent wish we
could have seat like 4-CIGs, but realistically their out of date. The
cream of the new-generation are the Desiro. The 450s are
excellent...444s brilliant.

But one can't just assume that the removal of seats creates more
standing room. The 376s aren't the worst example (perhaps the LU
Jubilee or the twenty experimental DLR vehicles claim the prize), but
there are many cases where spaces are provided for feet, but not the
top of the body, creating areas where one person can stand where there
could have been two seats.

Modern stock, for some reason, has to be full of great chunky bulkheads
and obstructions which people can't lean against except at an extremely
painful angle. Standing passengers need to be able to tuck themselves
into corners. Modern layouts force people away from the edges of the
vehicles so that they can only dangle from the ceiling.

There are safety implications to wide open areas where people have
nothing to hold on to or lean against, particularly shorter people.

Nick wrote:
"826" wrote in message
om...

I went to meetings about the 376 as part of the Connex passenger
forums, so
no doubt they would claim I was part of the "consultation". It was a
total
and utter sham - Olivier Brousse had already decided that they were
going to
be building "tube" trains for the routes closer to London, and there
was
certainly no debate to be had on that. What it came down to really
was: Did
we want a moderate OR very severe cut in the seating numbers compared
to
what we're used to?!

We passed comments on some of the original designs (which I never
found
particularly clear - they never once produced a proper diagram of the
train
layout from above) and were horrified to find some original designs
included
sections of longitudinal bench seating at the edges of the train!
(Now I
think about it, they really did have an agenda to make these trains
as
uncomfortable as possible maybe)

We certainly never discussed or were made aware of there intentions
to
remove all padding from the seats, and for them to be so
extraordinaly high
and oddly shaped. The assumption was that they would be along the
lines of
Networker seats but in a 2x2 formation with slightly wider spacing
(which
sounds great...)

All I would say - don't believe most of this "consultation with
commuters"
garbage; they were prepared to listen and make only superifical
changes, but
what you see in the 376 is largely what *they* wanted.

I thought we would be getting something much closer to a 375 than a
Networker (but with more space by the doors, and wider doors). I
wrote a
long follow-up document to Connex, but it would appear that most of
my
points were discarded, now I look back at it! In particular:

"Please include carpeting on these new suburban trains. Cold,
lino-style
flooring makes for a dull and dreary interior, reminiscent of tube
trains
and the current 465 Networkers. There are many very hard-wearing
carpet
materials available that are relatively easy to clean, and look very
smart."

I hate lino!

Nick


This is a very interesting post. However, what Connex did does not
surprise me. In hindsight it seems, in my opinion, that they did their
best to kill off rail travel in Kent, although for those commuters to
London, there was little choice but to accept the poor service.

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
Having had several journeys to and from work on these, I wonder if anyone
else agrees with my observations:

- These trains have some of the most uncomfortable seating I have ever
experienced, snip
Rich


If I've got my facts right my Hastings service uses the 375 but there is a
"high density" runt version with the same rock hard 2 + 3 wide seats.
Totally uncomfortable after 10 minutes let alone 1:40. Fortunately I've only
had to endure them once. I'm starting to miss the old slam door cattle
trucks slap around face whoops what am I saying, snap out of it.... one
thing about the more comfortable 375s, There's less leg room on the rowed
seating than on most airplanes I've been on - I'm only 6ft and its pretty
uncomfortable. Mind the tabled seats are very nice.

Paul

If I've got my facts right my Hastings service uses the 375 but there
is a
"high density" runt version with the same rock hard 2 + 3 wide seats.
Totally uncomfortable after 10 minutes let alone 1:40. Fortunately
I've only
had to endure them once. I'm starting to miss the old slam door cattle

trucks slap around face whoops what am I saying, snap out of it....
one
thing about the more comfortable 375s, There's less leg room on the
rowed
seating than on most airplanes I've been on - I'm only 6ft and its
pretty
uncomfortable. Mind the tabled seats are very nice.

No attempt to use specific stock on specific South Eastern routes ever
seems to last long. Whatever services the VEPs were felt suitable for,
they seemed to get used on the longest distance routes. The same seems
to be happening with the 375/9s.

When the CIGs were transferred from Brighton, they were meant to be
concentrated on the Hastings route, but this didn't last long.

All the talk of using specific stock on specific types of service is
meaningless on the south eastern where a lot of different types of
stock seem to be have been used indiscrimminately for as long as I can
remember.

"MIG" wrote in message
oups.com...
No attempt to use specific stock on specific South Eastern routes ever
seems to last long. Whatever services the VEPs were felt suitable for,
they seemed to get used on the longest distance routes. The same seems
to be happening with the 375/9s.

When the CIGs were transferred from Brighton, they were meant to be
concentrated on the Hastings route, but this didn't last long.

All the talk of using specific stock on specific types of service is
meaningless on the south eastern where a lot of different types of
stock seem to be have been used indiscrimminately for as long as I can
remember.

That reminds me a couple of years ago when Connex (gazoontite) ran out of
trains and I jumped on that green DEMU at Charing Cross for my journey
home - bit like being in your front room but only narrower.

Paul

David Jackman wrote:

The old standard DB S
Bahn EMU - class 420 - has 4 sets on each side of a 20.8m vehicle,
its
replacement, the articulated class 423, 3 sets on a 15.5m vehicle


And exactly no overall change to the unit - a 3 car 420 is 67400 mm
long with 12 door pairs per unit - and 423 are 4 car artic also 67400
mm long also with 12 door pairs per unit.


I'd like to have seen 376s built like DB 423s. Far too radical for UK
national railways (or too German for Connex as was) and far too
innovative for uk.railway to ever accept such a device


--
Nick