The guy in the ticket office yesterday (Trowbridge) was very helpful when selling the tickets, taking about half an hour to explain the various types of tickets and reservations that were available.
When the train arrived at the station, we were helped with getting the bikes on the train, and were told what to do at the other end. On the way back, we only just got to the station on time, and they left one door open for us to jump on seconds before the train left
Hang on your praising First GW, for fundermentally ... getting you to London and back in one peace without loss of life or limb? And it was on time? Wow. Well doen FGW... Isn't that what they are meant to do?
Well i took them today. Train there was late. Train back was a standard HST but had those vile, puke inducing 'renewed and improved' HST carriages. They basically took out the nice table seats and made it so you have less leg room. I (my employer) had to pay 16.50 for this journey.
teccuk wrote:Hang on your praising First GW, for fundermentally ... getting you to London and back in one peace without loss of life or limb? And it was on time? Wow. Well doen FGW... Isn't that what they are meant to do?
Well i took them today. Train there was late. Train back was a standard HST but had those vile, puke inducing 'renewed and improved' HST carriages. They basically took out the nice table seats and made it so you have less leg room. I (my employer) had to pay 16.50 for this journey.
You can't knock FGW for high density carriages. All the TOCs are doing it.
Kevo00 wrote:Table seats have less legroom anyway, and I bet it still has more legroom than a Megabus.
And a 150.
But less leg room than I get har har! Wheelchair bound crippled traveller wins again!
Andel Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Andel, who will do and say almost anything to get the attention he craves.
[/size]
Dave Worley wrote:You can't knock FGW for high density carriages. All the TOCs are doing it.
Agreed, at least on FGW you are still getting seats, try travelling on a 376. 20m of carraige and there are about 20 seats. Sardines take up less room if they stand.
Although the amount of leg-room on facing seats can overlap with the person sitting opposite. As long as your knee is not infringing in their crotch area, you have all the leg-room you need. In face-to-back seats however, the legroom is limited to the amount you see (and a little bit under the chair in front).
The proposed double-decker trains for the UK were to have all facing seats, with 3x2 on the top deck and 2x2 on the bottom, because you can't have 3-in-a-row face to back seats (yes, there are some on the Central Trains 150s and they're horrible).
I have a feeling that airline style seats do not increase the amount of legroom that you get over facing pairs, but it's the tables which take up room. With tables, you need extra legroom to manoeuvre yourself in and out, whereas without tables, you step over the legs of the people already there to get to the window seat. However intercity trains are (by a gentleman's agreement with the public) required to have tables, thus the folding ones on the back of seats. After all, where else do you put your laptop/book/phone/sandwich/toddler.
I've never travelled on a FGW refurbished carriage, although I'd imagine the benefit for rush hour commuters outweighs the discomfort of leisure passengers. Six extra seats allows a whole vestibule of passengers to sit, and six more can stand in the vestibule if needs be.
Any opinions expressed are purely mine and not that of any employer, past or present.
The stupid thing about 3+2 seating is that it reduces capacity because no one likes sitting in the middle seat because the seats aren't wide enough for 3 people to sit without extreme invasion of personal space. Consequently the only 2 of the 3 seats are filled, so you lose out on capacity there, then because the seats jut out into the aisle there is no room for people to stand in said aisle. No wonder companies like south eastern rip out the 3rd seat that sticks into the aisle since the 6 seat bays were horrible in the rush hour.
Having said that though, FGE bought their brand new 360s with 3+2 seating, silly people.
I believe that the number of people using the middle seat is greater than the number of people who would otherwise stand. However this comes at a cost to the passengers.
On Metro-North (New York City Commuter Rail), they made the outside seat uncomfortable (harder back, no headrest) so the outer-most person would move into the centre seat. Then standing people will sit on the uncomfortable seat as it's still better than standing.
Any opinions expressed are purely mine and not that of any employer, past or present.
I read the DfT report into double decker trains vs super-long trains (16 coaches) on 4 lines (Southampton, Brighton, Great Eastern and Great Western) and it concluded that double decker trains would be cheaper.
Lengthening platforms is expensive when there are things in the way, some stations on Thameslink will have to remain as 8 coaches as it can't be done (without spending billions of pounds).
The biggest thing against double deckers in this country is our tunnels (loading gauge problem again). The report concluded that either the tunnels need to be expanded to accommodate 2 tracks of larger loading gauge or to drill another tunnel and use the centre of the existing one for one track only (with increased clearance). But doing either would involve mega-delays on our busy lines. It said a 6 month closure of the Brighton Main Line is just not tolerable.
Personally I believe longer trains are the way forward, especially when multiple units are concerned. But adding two extra coaches to the HSTs are going to slow them down quite a bit.
Any opinions expressed are purely mine and not that of any employer, past or present.
Dave Worley wrote:Some did exist back in the day, as I recall. Or it might have just been a prototype. Apparently it looked pretty cramped.
Here is all the info you require. Not quite a proper double decker, more like 1 and a half decks and there is no corridor through it. Only 2 units were built and were limited to Charing Cross to Dartford via Sidcup. According to my dad they got really hot and were pretty cramped, even when not busy.
The trouble with double decker coaches is that because of stairwells they don't offer double capacity. They are also either very cramped or require expensive changes to loading gauge along their intended route. Loading and unloading also takes a lot longer.
As an aside it wouldn't surprise me if when Eurostar replaces or expands its fleet it chooses double decker trains like the Duplex TGV. It certainly has the option now HS1 is open.
What irritates me most about the idea of double decker and longer trains for London commuters constantly being floated is that it represents politicians and civil servants trying to find a cheap alternative to actually investing in the new infrastructure that is desperately needed. For some reason investment in railway infrastructure is a huge taboo for these people.
IMO the solution to the capacity issues lies with investment in more infrastructure, not in expensive tinkering with trains, platforms and loading gauge to try to squeeze a few more percent out of already packed trains. Crossrail, Thameslink and HS1 are a good start, but there are plenty of much cheaper actions that could be taken. For example, the DfT could tinker and procrastinate over longer or double deck trains on the London-Brighton main line to try to squeeze a small improvement out of it, or alternatively just re-open the closed 5 miles between Lewes and Uckfield, thus bypassing a lot of bottlenecks and almost doubling capacity between the south coast and East Croydon. It'd probably turn the Uckfield to East-Croydon line into a profit-maiking line too. Simple, easy, cheap, but as I say, there seems to be a taboo on actually laying new track.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
