Commuter Protest Over Rail Seats

[Coxster]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6288115.stm

Commuters travelling between Portsmouth and London have set up a campaign group to try and change the new trains used on the railway line.
The protesters said they were angry the seats on the South West Trains (SWT) service were smaller than before.

A shake-up of rolling stock led to high density seating, designed for suburban journeys, being introduced on the line.

Ian Johnston, of SWT, said: "It's about providing capacity on the lines of route where it's most needed."

Mr Johnston added: "The dilemma we have is people either have to stand or we provide a seat, which may, in their opinion, be less comfortable than they were used to."

The changes have provided 4,500 extra seats at peak times.

But David Habershon, founder of no450 Campaign, has made a video diary of his trip to work and set up a website calling for the old trains to be brought back.

He told BBC News: "The seats are so narrow that many people prefer to stand. They are not suitable for this route."

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SEATS
Width of a British Airways economy seat: 16.9in (43cm)
Width of a SWT seat on the Portsmouth to London line: 17.3in (44cm)
Width of a Wilts and Dorset bus seat: 17.7in (45cm)

 

[Z12XE]

Commuters travelling between Portsmouth and London have set up a campaign group to try and change the new trains used on the railway line.

It really does prove that some people have nothing better to do than moan. Maybe these people should swap with some of the FGW Local commuters for a week

If One in this area were replacing their trains with new ones which resulted in more seats they'd be more than welcome

 

[yorkie]

I'd probably prefer to stand than be in the middle of a row of 3 narrow seats with randoms either side.

3+2 seating really should not exist. It causes problems because some people simply consume the space of 2 seats! IMO it can reduce capacity because people are unwilling to occupy all seats and then you end up with a very narrow gangway.

In places like South Wales, and on Northern, I've seen 3+2 pacers be sensibly refurbished to 2+2 seating.

I think these people have a right to moan - after all they are customers paying a lot of money to travel.

SWT will do what is financially best for them, not necessarily what the passenger wants. So that means increasing seats at any costs (so they can say the train wasn't full because there were seats free, even if 2 obese people are occupying a bay of 3!) and also so they can reduce leasing costs (which they have done by creating a bidding war between Angel and Porterbrook). The latter is a good thing, in a way, as leasing companies do charge far too much.

 

[Z12XE]

3+2 seating really should not exist. It causes problems because some people simply consume the space of 2 seats! IMO it can reduce capacity because people are unwilling to occupy all seats and then you end up with a very narrow gangway.

Thats not always the case, having travelled regular on the GEML in the peaks over the last 7 or so years, its very rare to find empty seats at all, whether they be Window, middle or isle.

We've found that on our local line (off the main line) that with the 150s in the sholder peaks people would sit (10_101) now they only sit (10_01) (0 being an empty seat and _ being the ganway)

 

[Coxster]

SWT will do what is financially best for them, not necessarily what the passenger wants.

When the 444s were on the line they had complaints that there were not enough seats, so they replaced the 444s with 450s. Now that they have increased the number of seats on these services as asked, they now get people complaining that the seats are not good enough!

 

[Tom]

I think that converting X number of 450s to 2/2 seating, running in a 12 car formation should solve most issues...

 

[Andrew]

Yes, but if the 442s leasing costs are pushed back down, they may come back into SWT service (though possibly not at Bournemouth). Then the 450s might need to go onto suburban diagrams again.

New seats cost money, and SWT aren't in any position to be throwing money away (except where the privatised system requires it). Changing one set of 450s over to different seating also means the fleet is non standard, meaning mix ups will occur. It's the same deal as the new formations of FGW HSTs.

Besides, since the 450s have 1/3, 2/3 doors (and have 20m bodies IIRC), putting 2+2 seating in might not then give an increase with 12*450 over 10*444.

 

[jamie_]

If you want a good laugh about this read this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/23/letters_2301/

 

[Lewisham2221]

whilst it might sound stupid, a packed carriage probably is safer. after all, if it is packed, there is less empty space to move around in, therefore meaning less space to get thrown about in the event of a crash or derailment.

 

[g4mby]

It really does prove that some people have nothing better to do than moan. Maybe these people should swap with some of the FGW Local commuters for a week

Exactly. Our newest unit is 158872 built in 1992 and like virtually every other unit operated by FGW in the former Wessex area, is formed of just TWO coaches!

On some peak services we have more people standing than sitting. Yes it is possible to squeeze 80 or more standing passengers onto a Class 153 with seating for just 75. Tonight I travelled on a FGW Class 143 service out of Temple Meads with a loading that London Underground would be proud of. I think there were half a dozen cycles taking up seating space just to make the "What would happen if we crashed?" question a little more interesting. :angry1:

 

[Techniquest]

You lot in the South East region do nothing but moan!

"There's not enough seats!" - Provide more

"The seats are too narrow!" - Passengers moan

"Bring back the old trains!" - SWT can't believe their ears

I agree with those who suggest they swap with FGW Local for a week. I would put money on the fact they'd rather their Desiros after just one day.

SWT have done what people asked for, but they continue to moan! What the F**K do some people think sometimes? Have they truely nothing better to do than complain about nothing?

Give them NO trains. Give them a permanent bus replacement on. Watch as journey times double at the least. Watch as they moan that they want their trains back. Watch as I would say "No f**king way, you moaned about having trains instead of buses, now you can permanently have buses whilst we give trains to those who actually want trains".

 

[Coxster]

Firstly, WSXFan, I think you'll find that it's not everyone in the South East complaining. In fact it's not even the whole line that complained about the number of seats in the first place which led from 450s replacing 444s - really only the people living north of Haslemere who complained (and even then I doubt it's "most" passengers). I seem to remember you slagging off some companies before. Perhaps we should take away the whole of Herefordshire's services? Afterall, that's what you said would do to people who moan, even if it is only a minority of passengers who complained (i.e. you).

 

[WessexWarrior]

I actually have to agree with those who think that the SWT lot do nothing but **** and moan.

Most networks have to contend with knackered rolling stock, unmanned stations and in some cases, such as the FGW one, nowhere near enough trains, but a brand new fleet of 17 £70m trains is still not good enough!

In another example, Waterloo is getting new screens because apparently, the relatively new plasma screens are sometimes obscured by sunlight. Eh? Thousands of commuters a day have to contend with a knackered flip-screen at Liverpool Street that's in direct sunlight most of the time.

 

[Techniquest]

Firstly, WSXFan, I think you'll find that it's not everyone in the South East complaining. In fact it's not even the whole line that complained about the number of seats in the first place which led from 450s replacing 444s - really only the people living north of Haslemere who complained (and even then I doubt it's "most" passengers). I seem to remember you slagging off some companies before. Perhaps we should take away the whole of Herefordshire's services? Afterall, that's what you said would do to people who moan, even if it is only a minority of passengers who complained (i.e. you).

Yes, I should have added a sub-note to say not everyone in the SE complained. It is true that the SE in general complains about their rail service yet are given what is considered by many to be a very good service!

I was commenting on how some people complain about such trivial matters such as the width of seats that they do not deserve an excellent rail service. My local line shut for good over 50 years ago. Do we deserve or need a railway line? Yes. Did we get to keep it when we had it? No. Why? Because buses were cheaper to run than steam trains and rail could not keep up. I'd be happy with just a 153 every day. At least I'd not have to get a bus every damn day! Still, until I move this will not happen.

When the SE stops moaning about everything, then I'll stop moaning irrationally like the typical rich SE person.

 

[Coxster]

When the SE stops moaning about everything, then I'll stop moaning irrationally like the typical rich SE person.

Typically rich? Maybe you should actually come here. As for a good service, could that be because people in the SE have made sure companies take on their views, therefore the "feedback" improves the company's services?

 

[yorkie]

In another example, Waterloo is getting new screens because apparently, the relatively new plasma screens are sometimes obscured by sunlight. Eh? Thousands of commuters a day have to contend with a knackered flip-screen at Liverpool Street that's in direct sunlight most of the time.

Yeah, but that's still readable even in sunlight.

I am surprised the plasma screens at Waterloo lasted as long as they did, because they've been replaced just about everywhere else!

I think they lasted no more than just a few months at York!

 

[devon_metro]

Typically rich? Maybe you should actually come here. As for a good service, could that be because people in the SE have made sure companies take on their views, therefore the "feedback" improves the company's services?

And us people in the first monoploy do not make our opionions known?

If it goes to London then it is worthy of golden toilets!

 

[Techniquest]

Exactly, we complain about the poor and lack of service, but they don't listen. The SE is much richer than anywhere else, and money is power. If the SE says jump, you have to reply how high...

 

[Tom]

Note, it's the TOCs choice whether they want to react.

We're moaning about 442/444/450s at the moment - nothing has happened yet.

 

[Techniquest]

You lot moaned about the 444s, so you got 450s. That's action from a TOC, the same sort of action we can only dream of with FGW...

 

[Coxster]

You lot moaned about the 444s, so you got 450s. That's action from a TOC, the same sort of action we can only dream of with FGW...

Actually "my lot" never moaned about any trains, hence why we have 450s on our slow services and 444s on our longer distance services. In fact we now have more trains stopping at Farnborough than before, and we have not moaned or set up a petition once! In fact I've never even signed any of these other petitions floating about as from an enthusiasts point of view I love the 442s, but from a passenger's point of view I love the Desiros as I find them comfortable, bright, open, airy and a generally nice place to be. And yes, I am a regular passenger on them unlike yourself (who has been on 2, both on short distances) as Desiros are all that call at Farnborough nowadays.

 

[Techniquest]

I don't call Havant - Waterloo (with a break at Petersfield) a short journey! OK, so it's not massive but it's still a long enough journey to establish a liking of 444s.

 

[Coxster]

I don't call Havant - Waterloo (with a break at Petersfield) a short journey! OK, so it's not massive but it's still a long enough journey to establish a liking of 444s.

It's still effectivly just 1 journey you have done, of 1hr 20 mins in total with a break in the middle.

 

[Techniquest]

It is enough for me to make a decision on whether I like 444s. The fact that I spent longer on 442s to make that decision (Bournemouth - Weymouth and back on the next 442 to Soton AP, mainly due to having fallen asleep - I could have probably slept through to Waterloo!) is not terribly relevant. In that time that I travelled on 442s (I have also done Dorchester South - Brockenhurst on one on the 2005 FoSW, as well as Clapham Junction - Woking on a trip to Bentley) I decided I hate the things. Uncomfortable, rough-riding, slow (sooooo slow they were on my bashes!) and sleep-inducing - I find it near impossible to sleep on any other train! - no, I won't do a 442 again.

 

[Tom]

It is enough for me to make a decision on whether I like 444s. The fact that I spent longer on 442s to make that decision (Bournemouth - Weymouth and back on the next 442 to Soton AP, mainly due to having fallen asleep - I could have probably slept through to Waterloo!) is not terribly relevant. In that time that I travelled on 442s (I have also done Dorchester South - Brockenhurst on one on the 2005 FoSW, as well as Clapham Junction - Woking on a trip to Bentley) I decided I hate the things. Uncomfortable, rough-riding, slow (sooooo slow they were on my bashes!) and sleep-inducing - I find it near impossible to sleep on any other train! - no, I won't do a 442 again.

OK, so you board a train which is basically all stations between Poole & Weymouth and you call it slow? No wonder!

 

[devon_metro]

Well at least you get a train