HST refurbs : Great Western v Cross Country

[Geezertronic]

Unless I've got this wrong, you're saying that people who want/need more room should go First Class.

As usual you are wrong... the more knowledgable posts between your last post and this one are more accurate

 

[Justin Smith]

When I last went on East Coast, they had priority seats with more room. We'd got them on our return trip, even though some people had said they were unreservable. Perhaps it was because it was late at night, or an error, but either way - you get more leg room there.

So, people who need more room (not that standard seats don't have enough room, even if you'd like more) have that option without going first class. Everyone else can pay for the extra luxury, or have VERY mild inconvenience and save money. I'd save money as once you're off the train, you may well wonder why you paid more.

Given how much I travel by air for my work (less so this year mind), I'm used to sitting in seats where you really DON'T have much room. I'm yet to find a train that's like this.

Now, I'm not sure if FGW has priority seats in every coach?

It depends how tall you are, or, more specifically, how long your legs are, or more specifically still, how long your thigh bone* is.

* That should be in the plural, at least for those of us fortunate enough to have the standard complement of limbs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As usual you are wrong... the more knowledgable posts between your last post and this one are more accurate

Sorry, you're saying peolpe who want/need more room should travel First Class or go by car ?

All this is a little bit irrelevant actually.
I'm complaining about the fact there's less leg room than there used to be.
Most people prefer more leg room.
Unless I've also got this wrong, you're saying most people* aren't bothered about having less leg room.
I think I'm right.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of more seats v less leg room, it'd be good to at least hear you admit, or write, that, yes, most people will be less comfortable than they were. Surely that's just a fact ?

Incidentally, do tall people qualify to sit in the priority seats ?
If you answer no, does that also include people who are a bit taller than me and therefore literally cannot fit in some of the standard seats ?

* Would these be the same people who aren't bothered about being able to see out of the window ?
Or is that a different set of people ?

 

[Geezertronic]

Sorry, you're saying peolpe who want/need more room should travel First Class or go by car ?

Again, you're twisting what has been posted to suit your own point of view. I am saying if YOU don't like the space in Standard class then YOU have the option of either upgrading to First Class or going by a different method of transport, but if YOU expect the legroom to be more accomodating on a different form of transport then YOU may be mistaken

Unless I've also got this wrong, you're saying most people* aren't bothered about having less leg room.
I think I'm right.

....

* Would these be the same people who aren't bothered about being able to see out of the window ?
Or is that a different set of people ?

Again, twisting comments to suit your own point of view. Please quote where I have said that most people aren't bothered about having more legroom (without twisting please)

Incidentally, do tall people qualify to sit in the priority seats ?
If you answer no, does that also include people who are a bit taller than me and therefore literally cannot fit in some of the standard seats ?

That's a can of worms right there that can also be applied to overweight people etc... I'll leave you to argue with yourself on that one...

 

[MCR247]

Most people prefer more leg room.
Unless I've also got this wrong, you're saying most people* aren't bothered about having less leg room.

Most people would prefer a seat. Then, maybe they would prefer more legroom.

Just answer this question please, with either a seat or standing

If you were travelling from Birmingham to York in the peak, would you rather a seat, albeit with less legroom or to stand?

Once again, just answer with a seat or standing and nothing else

 

[Justin Smith]

Most people would prefer a seat. Then, maybe they would prefer more legroom.

Just answer this question please, with either a seat or standing

If you were travelling from Birmingham to York in the peak, would you rather a seat, albeit with less legroom or to stand?

Once again, just answer with a seat or standing and nothing else

That's only a valid question if that journey was the only one I ever did by train.
It's also an invalid question for another reason. I've never had to stand for a whole journey of that length on any train journey I've ever made.
The worst ever, and that's not that common*, would be no seats from New St to Derby, where you'd definitely get a seat (as a load of passengers got off, you`re on the train to get a vacated seats) for the rest of the journey to York.

If that was the only journey I ever did by train, so I never had to suffer the discomfort of restricted room on all the other train journies I made, then obviously I'd rather have a seat. But as I've said that's a meaningless answer, to a meaningless question.

* 1 in 20 journies, or 1 in 5 for those in peak hours ?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again, you're twisting what has been posted to suit your own point of view. I am saying if YOU don't like the space in Standard class then YOU have the option of either upgrading to First Class or going by a different method of transport, but if YOU expect the legroom to be more accomodating on a different form of transport then YOU may be mistaken.

But surely all your arguments apply equally to everyone else who travels by train.
So to say they only apply to me is bizarre.

Right, cards on the table time.
I think that XC refurbed HSTs are more cramped and therefore comfortable than they were.
I think I'm right in saying that you don't think they're any less comfortable, or at the very least, not signoficantly so.
So the question is, how much more leg room would they have to take out before you'd admit that the trains would be significantly less comfortable than they were?
An increase to 90 seats per carriage ?
95 ?
100?
What would it be ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But as I've said that's a meaningless answer, to a question that I cannot answer because I have been proved wrong.

Corrected the sentence for you.

 

[Greenback]

That's only a valid question if that journey was the only one I ever did by train.
It's also an invalid question for another reason. I've never had to stand for a whole journey of that length on any train journey I've ever made.
The worst ever, and that's not that common*, would be no seats from New St to Derby, where you'd definitely get a seat (as a load of passengers got off, you're on the train to get a vacated seats) for the rest of the journey to York.

If that was the only journey I ever did by train, so I never had to suffer the discomfort of restricted room on all the other train journies I made, then obviously I'd rather have a seat. But as I've said that's a meaningless answer, to a meaningless question.

* 1 in 20 journies, or 1 in 5 for those in peak hours ?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But surely all your arguments apply equally to everyone else who travels by train.
So to say they only apply to me is bizarre.

Right, cards on the table time.
I think that XC refurbed HSTs are more cramped and therefore comfortable than they were.
I think I'm right in saying that you don't think they're any less comfortable, or at the very least, not signoficantly so.
So the question is, how much more leg room would they have to take out before you'd admit that the trains would be significantly less comfortable than they were?
An increase to 90 seats per carriage ?
95 ?
100?
What would it be ?

Just to put in my £10 worth, yes, carriages are less spacious than they once were. Depending on your body shape, the type of seats used, the configuration of the seats, and where you are sitting, you may find some some seats less comfortable than in the 1980's. On the other hand, you may not.

Anyone that does feel very uncomfortable in every seat they try does have the option of travelling first class where available, or on another form of transport, where it's likely that they will find no more room and no greater comfort. I find that oaches and aircraft are generally much more cramped than even the worst new trains. So I exercise my right to choose and avoid those types of transport wherever possible.

In an ideal world I think the majority of British people would prefer a huge seat and a table all to themselves. In order to accommodate 32 armchairs and dining tables in a carriage fares would have to be even higher than current First Class fares.

I think most people would agree that there is bound to be less room when more seats are fitted in a carriage. Whether this makes one uncomfortable when using the seats depends on the variables I mentioned above. For the majority, the seats are not uncomfortable, for many who find them slightly uncomfortable on long journeys do not appear to find this to be significant enough in order tos top travelling by train.

Personally, I dislike sititing at a seat where you can;t see much out of the window, but it is still infinitely preferable to a wretched coach or aircraft.

 

[Geezertronic]

Ok, here's my deck of cards then (without bold type)

Right, cards on the table time.
I think that XC refurbed HSTs are more cramped and therefore comfortable than they were.

That's your opinion which you are very right to share. This is a forum and sharing one's opinion is what it's all about (unless it is to the detriment of another persons opinion which is what some of your replies can imply)

I think I'm right in saying that you don't think they're any less comfortable, or at the very least, not signoficantly so.

Again, please quote a post I have made to backup your assumption.

So the question is, how much more leg room would they have to take out before you'd admit that the trains would be significantly less comfortable than they were?
An increase to 90 seats per carriage ?
95 ?
100?
What would it be ?

I refer you to my previous comment. Please provide a quote where I have mentioned anything about legroom? The only comment I have made is that it actually sounds like good business sense to fit extra seats into the coaches and that such a decision is not motivated by size

You were the one who said:

I tell you I'd love to have a chat with the person at XC who authorised cramming 82 seats into a long distance carriage originally designed for 72. Now he is a t****r, and there's no possibility for a breakdown in communication on that one because I'm not joking this time.

So as I already said, you are calling someone a t****r for making a business-related decision you have no involvement in or no knowledge of how it was made?

I have re-read this thread and some of your posts are full of twists, exaggeration and some would say Daily Mail journalistic writing. I am more and more convinced that you are an Internet troll whose purpose is to cause argument rather than discussion

 

[WillPS]

Justin - why on earth do you bother contributing to a discussion board? You are so convinced your opinion is fact that any fibre of interesting discussion that may somehow rise from one of your tiresome threads is quickly squashed by you assuring everybody else they are wrong.

 

[Justin Smith]

Just to put in my £10 worth, yes, carriages are less spacious than they once were. Depending on your body shape, the type of seats used, the configuration of the seats, and where you are sitting, you may find some some seats less comfortable than in the 1980's. On the other hand, you may not.

Anyone that does feel very uncomfortable in every seat they try does have the option of travelling first class where available, or on another form of transport, where it's likely that they will find no more room and no greater comfort. I find that oaches and aircraft are generally much more cramped than even the worst new trains. So I exercise my right to choose and avoid those types of transport wherever possible.

In an ideal world I think the majority of British people would prefer a huge seat and a table all to themselves. In order to accommodate 32 armchairs and dining tables in a carriage fares would have to be even higher than current First Class fares.

I think most people would agree that there is bound to be less room when more seats are fitted in a carriage. Whether this makes one uncomfortable when using the seats depends on the variables I mentioned above. For the majority, the seats are not uncomfortable, for many who find them slightly uncomfortable on long journeys do not appear to find this to be significant enough in order tos top travelling by train.

Personally, I dislike sititing at a seat where you can;t see much out of the window, but it is still infinitely preferable to a wretched coach or aircraft.

Now I may not fully agree with all this, but I can respect this post because it's a balanced argument. It's far easier to accept then certain people on here who are basically saying that rolling stock is just as comfortable as it ever was, which is rubbish.

Corrected the sentence for you.

Now look here, I was on a refurbed XC HST and there was about 1", that's one bleedin' inch, between the front of my knee and the back of the seat in front. That is a fact. and, for an Inter City train, that is an absolute disgrace.
I don't understand where you get this "proved wrong" crap.
You have no right to tell me that I actually had more room than I thought I had.
I suggest you move off Fantasy Island, whilst living there you are losing grip on reality.

Justin - why on earth do you bother contributing to a discussion board? You are so convinced your opinion is fact that any fibre of interesting discussion that may somehow rise from one of your tiresome threads is quickly squashed by you assuring everybody else they are wrong.

But you're forgetting that not everone else does disagree with me......
As for opinion v fact, saying there's less legroom (on a refurbed XC HST) than there was is a fact, not an opinion.

Ok, here's my deck of cards then (without bold type)
That's your opinion which you are very right to share. This is a forum and sharing one's opinion is what it's all about (unless it is to the detriment of another persons opinion which is what some of your replies can imply)
Again, please quote a post I have made to backup your assumption.
I refer you to my previous comment. Please provide a quote where I have mentioned anything about legroom? The only comment I have made is that it actually sounds like good business sense to fit extra seats into the coaches and that such a decision is not motivated by size
You were the one who said:
So as I already said, you are calling someone a t****r for making a business-related decision you have no involvement in or no knowledge of how it was made?
I have re-read this thread and some of your posts are full of twists, exaggeration and some would say Daily Mail journalistic writing. I am more and more convinced that you are an Internet troll whose purpose is to cause argument rather than discussion

It is distinctly possible that we're suffering from a breakdown in communication and you are in fact making the same point(s) as Greenback, it's just that they didn't come out in quite such a balanced way.

When I'm cramped for over an hour in a train I get upset, you would too, and my thoughts (whilst actually on that train) toward the designer of the XC HST refurb were rather more fruity than t****r.
May I say that if you personally aren't cramped on one of those trains it's a little bit arrogant to dismiss my (and others) discomfort ?

 

[Geezertronic]

Justin - why on earth do you bother contributing to a discussion board? You are so convinced your opinion is fact that any fibre of interesting discussion that may somehow rise from one of your tiresome threads is quickly squashed by you assuring everybody else they are wrong.

I agree completely

It is distinctly possible that we're suffering from a breakdown in communication and you are in fact making the same point(s) as Greenback, it's just that they didn't come out in quite such a balanced way.

When I'm cramped for over an hour in a train I get upset, you would too, and my thoughts (whilst actually on that train) toward the designer of the XC HST refurb were rather more fruity than t****r.

The problem is that Greenback and others make valid discussion points and don't have to drop down to a level of calling people t*****s when they have had no input or discussion around the business reasons why an XC HST coach was refurbished. Their knowledge is far superior to mine as far as railway matters are concerned, I don't necessarily agree with everything they say but don't have to belittle them in order to put my side of the discussion over

May I say that if you personally aren't cramped on one of those trains it's a little bit arrogant to dismiss my (and others) discomfort ?

And may I say that if you are personally cramped on one of those trains, it's a little bit arrogant to dismiss others non discomfort or different point of view even if they are the same size as you or taller? Since I have not commented on your discomfort or leg space (or lack of it), I presume that comment is meant for someone else?

You've still not provided the quotes I asked you to above?

 

[jon0844]

An inch of space is still space is it not?

And older trains may have been more comfortable, but I still find it's quite comfortable sitting in first class - but I choose not to do so very often because I'd rather one of those awful cramped seats, where there's only an inch of space instead of a metre, than pay loads of money and then wonder why I paid so much for empty space I didn't need.

And as for insulting people who may have been involved in a project, is it not likely that said person(s) were given a very firm order to increase capacity - possibly as part of a franchise requirement laid down by the DfT? On that basis, just like the coalition is having to do on the economy, you don't have the option of doing nothing. I'd say that if you've got 10 more seats per carriage and STILL have an inch of space so you're not actually squashed in, or touching the seat back, then it's a job very well done.

And if anyone wants to go back to the old days, with loads of room, then might I suggest we start arguing about how we can get people OFF trains. I mean, Justin Smith seems to travel all over the place to do all this research, so I am sure all the other passengers are well chuffed that he's doing that and taking up a valuable seat.

 

[Greenback]

It's all about choice really. We all have the choice not to use goods and services that we find poor value, unethical, uncomfortable or annoys/upsets us in some other way.

There are quite a few companies or organisations that I will not deal with as I don't like their corporate attitude, for example. I don't seek to persuade anyone else to follow my example, I make my own decisions based on my personal values, and so can everyone else!

With train travel, most of us have alternative means of transport we can choose. If we dislike a certain type of train, we can often find ways either to avoid it completely, or to minimise the amount of time we spend on it. We can choose cycling, walking, coaches, private cars, buses, taxi's and airlines or a combination of these for most journeys.

We take a view on price, flexibility, length of journey and comfort when deciding which method of transportation suits our needs best (assuming we don't want to avoid a certain company or train completely!).

Comfort is only one of the factors involved - and it's improtance compared tot he others will vary from person to person. Personally, I was willing to put up with what I expected to be a very uncomfortable seat on an aircraft to fly from Cardiff to Edinburgh, as we had cheap tickets and it was the only way e could leave South Wales after 1700 and arrive in Edinburgh the same day. I would probably have paid more money per person though in order to travel by train, had the journey been possible, as I considered the price worth paying for the extra comfort of the train seat compared to the aircraft.

(I was correct, I found the seat on the plane extremely cramped and uncomfortable, but bearable for the flight of just over an hour!)

Comfort is less of a selling point for the TOC's now. When the HST's were introduced, Britian's railways were in steep decline and needed to attract customers in large numbers back to the railway from the roads. The comfort levels of the HST were designed to do that. Thirty years on and the railway system is no longer in that sort of decline. Comfort and space are no longer considered good marketing tools compared to price, except for the First Class market. This is probably inevitable, given the popularity of the low cost airlines and the fact that the pile em high and sell em cheap business philospohy has taken such a hold in almost all walks of life.

I think we should end the discussion with the consensus that yes, railway carriages are less roomy than they once were, but still provide a competitive service to other public transport modes!

 

[tbtc]

Can't believe this thread is still going

Don't feed the Troll

 

[jon0844]

It's funny how nobody is moaning about reduced legroom and other restrictions on planes to keep fares low. We all know to expect to be crammed in, but want first class luxury on the railway when it is seeing large growth in usage all the time (and will continue to do so, especially when oil prices rise even more or the aviation industry is made to pay its own way).

 

[Greenback]

Quite. Although hardly anyone is moaning about reduced legroom in trains either!

 

[Justin Smith]

It's funny how nobody is moaning about reduced legroom and other restrictions on planes to keep fares low. We all know to expect to be crammed in, but want first class luxury on the railway when it is seeing large growth in usage all the time (and will continue to do so, especially when oil prices rise even more or the aviation industry is made to pay its own way).

People do moan about reduced leg room on planes, in fact there are websites dedicated to informing potential passengers just how much leg room they're going to get for their money. Does anyone know if any train company reveals on its website the seat pitch on its trains ? If there isn`t then I think that explains how they can get away with reducing it.
There has even been a campaign, and I agree with them, that the seat pitch you'll get should be printed on the ticket. I'm starting to think they should do the same with trains......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And may I say that if you are personally cramped on one of those trains, it's a little bit arrogant to dismiss others non discomfort or different point of view even if they are the same size as you or taller? Since I have not commented on your discomfort or leg space (or lack of it), I presume that comment is meant for someone else?

You've still not provided the quotes I asked you to above?

How can one dismiss "non discomfort" ? Isn`t that a contradiction in terms ?

What quotes are you asking for by the way ?

 

[Geezertronic]

Can't believe this thread is still going

Don't feed the Troll

I know I shouldn't but I'm actually enjoying it

It's funny how nobody is moaning about reduced legroom and other restrictions on planes to keep fares low. We all know to expect to be crammed in, but want first class luxury on the railway when it is seeing large growth in usage all the time (and will continue to do so, especially when oil prices rise even more or the aviation industry is made to pay its own way).

That is a very valid point. Also "no one" moans about the lack of space in other forms of transport such as bus/coach or car compared to the train

How can one dismiss "non discomfort" ? Isn't that a contradiction in terms ?

Who is dismissing "non discomfort"? Maybe you? It's hard to make a point with you.... you see you are saying that I am dismissing your comment on comfort and I am reversing that and saying if you can dismiss people who don't moan about comfort then you should expect it right back at you

What quotes are you asking for by the way ?

If you read back the comments, you will find the answer

 

[jon0844]

Why not ask seatguru to go and measure up trains?

The fact is, I doubt many people are that bothered when it comes to trains. Some people may sit on an Intercity train from London to Scotland (or further), they probably have sufficient legroom. Everyone else is just using it as a means of transport. I'm yet to sit on a train where I'm touching the seat in front of me - but I can think of many buses and coaches where that's been true.

Unless you've got a fairly large car, chances are most passengers in a car who enjoy all the freedom a car offers (and that's not deniable) are also quite cramped in the back. It's why you'll generally stop off from time to time to stretch your legs when driving. It's much easier to get out of your seat and stretch while the train is still moving you towards where you want to be!

 

[Max]

Can we keep it civil please.

 

[Justin Smith]

Right OK, I'm wrong.
Nobody is bothered how much room they get on a train or any where else for that matter, in fact I have it on very good authority that those into Yoga actually prefer resricted leg room.
And then there's all those agorophobics, don't forget them, there's loads of them.
God knows why anyone actually pays extra to go First class or Business class, they must have personality disorders, unlike me now that I've discovered being crushed up doesn't worry normal people.
It's completely pointless trying to argue with the train's designers because they're the smartest guys since the start of the world. Let's face it they must be because apparently they've discovered a new dimension, fitting more volume into an existing volume.
I could do with them redesigning the wardrobes in our house as my wife's clothes gradually take more and more space up in mine. Those of you who are married know what I mean......

 

[Geezertronic]

Right OK, I'm wrong.
Nobody is bothered how much room they get on a train or any where else for that matter, in fact I have it on very good authority that those into Yoga actually prefer resricted leg room. And then there's all those agorophobics, don't forget them, there's loads of them.
God knows why anyone actually pays extra to go First class or Business class, they must have personality disorders, unlike me now that I've discovered being crushed up doesn't worry normal people.
It's completely pointless trying to argue with the train's designers because they're the smartest guys since the start of the world. Let's face it they must be because apparently they've discovered a new dimension, fitting more volume into an existing volume.
I could do with them redesigning the wardrobes in our house as my wife's clothes gradually take more and more space up in mine. Those of you who are married know what I mean......

That post alone sums up your discussion prowess (or lack of it). It's completely pointless trying to have any form of discussion with you... you either have to be right or you throw a hissy fit like above. You say that nobody is bothered - quote a post on here that someone has posted saying nobody is bothered? Prove your points and your discussion may hold a lot more weight - otherwise they appear like the ranting of an Internet Troll

Edit: Sorry Max, I just hate having words put in my "keyboard" and being told I've said something when I have not...

 

[Greenback]

How did we go from this

I've just travelled on a Great Western refurbished HST.
I'd seen them from the outside and they seemed claustrophobic and cramped, but when I actually travelled on one yesterday I was pleasantly surprised how much leg room there was, though I still think they're claustrophobic....
I got a Cross Country HST today and I have to say I'm pleased I was only on it for 50min. There was about the same legroom as on the EMT class 153 I got on next ! Still at least it means the Voyagers don't look as crap as they used to (in comparison to the HSTs).
Are there fewer seats on the Great Western HSTs ? If not how come there was so much more leg room ?

to this

Right OK, I'm wrong.
Nobody is bothered how much room they get on a train or any where else for that matter, in fact I have it on very good authority that those into Yoga actually prefer resricted leg room. And then there's all those agorophobics, don't forget them, there's loads of them.
God knows why anyone actually pays extra to go First class or Business class, they must have personality disorders, unlike me now that I've discovered being crushed up doesn't worry normal people.
It's completely pointless trying to argue with the train's designers because they're the smartest guys since the start of the world. Let's face it they must be because apparently they've discovered a new dimension, fitting more volume into an existing volume.
I could do with them redesigning the wardrobes in our house as my wife's clothes gradually take more and more space up in mine. Those of you who are married know what I mean......

It's like the posts have been written by two compeltely diferent people!

What do you want Justin? Do you want everyone to agree that seats are too cramped and start some sort of media campaign? Or do you just want to start arguments and get a reaction? It appears that by and large, nost people either aren't bothered about the seats because they don't find the seats so cramped as to be uncomfortable, or if they do they are prepared to put up with it because of the convenience, flexibility, speed or price of rail travel.

No one can discuss anything with someone who refuses to listen to the other point of view. There have been several posts in this and other threads which, sadly, makes it sound as if you are ranting hysterically. This is why some people are calling you a troll. If you wish to be seen as a troll, then continue posting in the way that you do, and no doubt there will be fewer and fewer people willing to engage in any sort of discourse with you!

 

[MCR247]

Well he either belives everything he says is gospel, or throws his toys of the pram

 

[daikilo]

Well he either belives everything he says is gospel, or throws his toys of the pram

Nope, he has accurately described the frustration of current reality whereby all your business models on revenue enhancement are stalled, which is exactly what has happened at least once per decade in the past.

Right now revenue improvement is not a given hence most TOCs are focussing on unit cost reduction, such as "optimising volume usage", which is not what BR and its predecessors did.

Good news is that history suggests that those that achieve lowest unit costs are very well placed for the next "boom" cycle. But likewise, those that timely and overtly promote upmarket also win by being first into the cycle.

 

[Geezertronic]

Nope, he has accurately described the frustration of current reality whereby all your business models on revenue enhancement are stalled, which is exactly what has happened at least once per decade in the past.

Right now revenue improvement is not a given hence most TOCs are focussing on unit cost reduction, such as "optimising volume usage", which is not what BR and its predecessors did.

Good news is that history suggests that those that achieve lowest unit costs are very well placed for the next "boom" cycle. But likewise, those that timely and overtly promote upmarket also win by being first into the cycle.

The fustration of the current reality? What exactly does that mean? If you mean by making a point and then ignoring differing points of view then you are correct.

 

[MCR247]

Nope, he has accurately described the frustration of current reality whereby all your business models on revenue enhancement are stalled, which is exactly what has happened at least once per decade in the past.

Right now revenue improvement is not a given hence most TOCs are focussing on unit cost reduction, such as "optimising volume usage", which is not what BR and its predecessors did.

Good news is that history suggests that those that achieve lowest unit costs are very well placed for the next "boom" cycle. But likewise, those that timely and overtly promote upmarket also win by being first into the cycle.

Think about it,
less legroom = more seats = more people sitting down = more happy passengers = more use trains = less cars

 

[sprinterguy]

Fitting 10 or 12 more seats than originally fitted into a mark 3 carriage is an excellent way to increase capacity by almost an entire coach load per train, without having to shell out massive expense on inserting an extra carriage into each rake, incurring increased costs in track access charges, maintenance costs and fuel costs for a start, whilst at the same time journey times increase due to the added weight of an extra carriage. And that would even be assuming that there were enough spare carriages to facilitate this, which there aren't!

When I travel by train I want to get a seat, I don't feel that I need to be able to lounge out like I'm in my living room. Trains are there to get as many people as possible from A to B as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and by fitting a few extra seats into a carriage through the, to my eyes, negligible decrease in space between each seat and the one in front, more passengers have a good journey experience on a busy train as they get to sit down!

I'm 5' 11", and I travel by train wherever possible and when it is convenient for where I am going because it is more comfortable than the comparable journey by car, coach or even plane.

There is no train in this country where the seating plan has passengers crammed in like cattle, which might be the case if designers put maybe 100 seats in a carriage: Now THAT would be a lack of thought over passenger comfort. Putting 5 extra pairs of seats into a carriage is not the end of the world: The seating is more than adequate: I have a friend who has just returned from 2 months of travelling in Thailand, if you think that seating in a Crosscountry HST is a disgrace, then I suggest you take a look at Third class on Thai railways, and then endure an 8 hour journey, at an average speed of maybe 30mph, on one of those trains, then see how you feel.

 

[Justin Smith]

That post alone sums up your discussion prowess (or lack of it). It's completely pointless trying to have any form of discussion with you... you either have to be right or you throw a hissy fit like above. You say that nobody is bothered - quote a post on here that someone has posted saying nobody is bothered? Prove your points and your discussion may hold a lot more weight - otherwise they appear like the ranting of an Internet Troll

Edit: Sorry Max, I just hate having words put in my "keyboard" and being told I've said something when I have not...

It's known as satire.
My website is full of it, plus opinionated, controversial views which cut through the b******t and don't just accept what I'm told by "the powers that be".

"Nobody would want to read that".

The site gets 3,000 visitors a day, every day.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I HIGHLY doubt that your Aerials and TV site get's 3,000 unique hits a day.