'Narrow' South West Trains' seats criticised

[Ivo]

3+2 seating is uncomfortable at times but for the most part you would only get one standee per row of seats (to allow for movement through the train) anyway. Some day the people who are complaining about the 3rd seat will lose their 3rd seat and be forced to stand for an hour as a result. Then they'll complain about a lack of seats!

One problem with British commuters. They are rarely satisfied, and complain when something is anything but perfect.

Do you hear Tube passengers complaining about a lack of seating? Passengers that are not out on the country side of Harrow?

 

[yorksrob]

As a commuter, I'd rather the option of wedging myself in the middle seat (as I occasionally do) if needs be than have to stand. And don't forget, if you have five or six prople who know eachother, these can be accommodated in one bay on a busy train.

 

[Aictos]

Simple fact is the folk bitching are snobs and want their services to be exclusively 444s. It's not going to happen so they can keep at it!

It's only 73 miles for god sake. The folk on the WCML don't make such a fuss about the 350s.

I quite agree, least they got brand new trains unlike other areas of the UK which equally need extra trains.

As to the distance covered by them, I don't see any MP on the Peterborough route for example complaining about the 321s or 317s which has 3+2 seating.

Some people don't know when they've got it good,

 

[Oswyntail]

...I think maybe SWT passengers should stop moaning - class 450s are much better than what some people have to put up with!

This is absolutely true...but doesn't stop the complaint being valid. As someone remarked earlier, it comes down to the definition of inner-suburban, outer-suburban, commuter and the like. Is there a guideline of the average journey length for which each type of stock is appropriate? Or for the loading profile? If the overall journey length is, say, two hours, but the average journey time on the service is, say, 20 minutes, then 3+2 could be appropriate. Similarly, if the same train is only fully loaded for the last 20 minutes, 3+2 is again appropriate. In both cases there may be passengers travelling the full journey, but they will be in the minority. But, if the same train is fully loaded after 20 minutes, and takes on more passengers on the way, 3+2 is not acceptable. TOCs should know this (do they?) and have specified appropriate stock for the services they are providing. Hard for Northern (who, AFAIK, have never been able to specify anything) but SWT have no excuse.

 

[Bob M]

I don't know how many of the contributors here have actually travelled in these trains. The 450 seats really are uncomfortable. As well as narrow, they are very hard.

And it isn't only 70 mins to Portsmouth. These trains quite often turn up on the Weymouth line, especially at weekends. That can be a three-hour journey.

 

[MCR247]

I don't know how many of the contributors here have actually travelled in these trains. The 450 seats really are uncomfortable. As well as narrow, they are very hard.

I have and I don't see what the fuss is about.

People need to get over it and get a life

 

[WestCoast]

I don't know how many of the contributors here have actually travelled in these trains. The 450 seats really are uncomfortable. As well as narrow, they are very hard..

Yes, I've done a 1 hour 20 mins journey on a 450. The seats they use are the same AFAIK as on London Midland 350/2s and I've done a 3 hour 15 minutes journey on those seats. At least they have high backs unlike pacers on my commute!

So I do know and they are not that bad, much preferable to no seat at all !

Those in SWT land don't really know what uncomfortable is if they think 450s are that bad. The services around 2 hours in length on other TOCs aren't much better and in some cases, much worse!

 

[Ivo]

450s are good little units. And I've never seen one in Weymouth, although they do run the slower services that terminate at Poole. But the nature of the slower runs is that they carry more local traffic than the 444s; I did one from Brockenhurst to Bournbemouth last year and had to stand! Why? Brockenhurst College.

450s are ideal for the outer-suburban routes, including Reading which they rarely serve outside of the peaks, but I agree that once you get past Basingstoke (or Haslemere to be fair), they are out of their depth. If they had at least some 2+2, as with 377s as mentioned previously, then they could easily run right through to Weymouth, with longer-distance travellers inhabiting the 2+2 cars and Southampton/London commuters the 3+2 cars. I must have covered every inch of SWT track between London and Reading on a 450 at some stage or another, and never had any problem with them at all.

450s are not uncomfortable. They are the best short/medium-distance stock in 3rd rail land in my opinion. (Only 395s, 442s and 444s would be considered "long-distance stock" to me.) 458s, on the other hands, can go back to Alstom as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MCR247]

then they could easily run right through to Weymouth, with longer-distance travellers inhabiting the 2+2 cars and Southampton/London commuters the 3+2 cars
.

As if that would work

 

[PhilipW]

I have and I don't see what the fuss is about.

People need to get over it and get a life

Well if 3+2 seating is so good let's convert the Pendos on Euston-Birmingham to 3+2. ... also all Brighton trains.

Journies to Portsmouth are much longer that ones to Brighton and Birmingham.

What's happened to the concept that train journies are actually meant to be pleasant when you can sit and relax in reasonable seating. Not any more, it would seem.

The answer to the SWT problem is quite simple. Convert a sub set of the 450 stock to 2+2 seating like the Southern 377s for use on its longer runs. It's not difficult., but SWT aren't listening.

 

[TomJ93]

I like 350/2 seats more than 350/1 seats.

 

[MCR247]

The answer to the SWT problem is quite simple. Convert a sub set of the 450 stock to 2+2 seating like the Southern 377s for use on its longer runs. It's not difficult., but SWT aren't listening.

SWT aren't listening? Or they just aren't being stupid? Hmm....

So what about the commuters that will no longer have a change of a seat, do they not get a say? Tbh, this whole debate is quite ridiculous,
'People never sit in the middle seat' 'there is never any room when people always sit in the middle seat' etc etc

 

[WestCoast]

Well if 3+2 seating is so good let's convert the Pendos on Euston-Birmingham to 3+2

South West Trains aren't promising an InterCity service are they?

Journies to Portsmouth are much longer that ones to Brighton and Birmingham.

The quickest I can find is 1h31 and the very longest about 2h10 - the quickest is not that much longer (less than 10mins) than a Birmingham run.

What's happened to the concept that train journies are actually meant to be pleasant when you can sit and relax in reasonable seating. Not any more, it would seem.

You do have a legitimate complaint I will not deny that - it just will irk some people as it is splashed over the newspapers and other routes have much less comfortable rolling stock. For example, a commute into Manchester from Southport of around 1h15/1h20 is run by a bouncy old pacer with the worst cramped form of seats imaginable.

 

[alloneword100]

Similarly, if the same train is only fully loaded for the last 20 minutes, 3+2 is again appropriate. In both cases there may be passengers travelling the full journey, but they will be in the minority. But, if the same train is fully loaded after 20 minutes, and takes on more passengers on the way, 3+2 is not acceptable.

This, I think, is the key point. I use this line pretty frequently from Guildford, though not every day, and I'm normally using it in the rush hour. There are always some seats available as they arrive from Portsmouth into Guildford, and not always just the middle seats. Similarly, going the other way, there are a lot of people getting off at either Woking or Guildford. It's not that often that you woujld spend more than 40 minutes three abreast. Yes it is not comfortable, but it is a lot better than standing.

The old slam doors also used to have 3 plus 2 seating, with the added problem of armrests so you couldn't have one cheek half off the seat. Trust me, the latter is far preferable to the former.

 

[Blindtraveler]

i'm anti deziro and anti 3 plus 2! Did portsmouth london once on a 450, not nice. The seats are quid hard and these are undoubtedly commuter stock. Add to this i live in scotland where our 3 plus 2 is concentrated in glasgow. We did until the turbos0arived have it on the 150s too and both examples, even the 334s, and the refurbed northberwick 322s are far superior. Since then, i've booked an advance purchase deal with suthern, traveled a bit longer and found it enjoyable.

 

[yorksrob]

As if that would work

It used to be quite common for trains on the Southern to have a mixture of high and low density stock. Of course, there was no way to control which commuter got on where, although I suppose if a longer distance traveller did find himself wedged in the middle, they would have less reason to complain as they could have jumped on the other bit of the train had they just arrived earlier.

 

[Ivo]

It isn't nearly as reliable from the London end though is it? Supposing a huge mass of Woking commuters turned up at once to board a Pompey train; people to Haslemere and beyond would have a very inconvenient journey! Of course, for the most part, into London would be their own fault. 6-cars at 2+2 would easily suffice on a typical journey between Portsmouth and at least Haslemere and probably Guildford.

 

[moonrakerz]

The 'cattle truck' argument?

It's complete rubbish and you know it, because us humans don't actually walk around on four legs.

????

It is not "complete rubbish".

The point is that there are legal limits on the number of animals that can be put into a specific area - there are no limits for the number of humans.

The number of legs are totally irrelevant.

 

[radamfi]

I don't accept arguments that 450 passengers should be grateful because there are other people who have to put up with 142s. What if passengers in Munich couldn't have decent trains because passengers in another part of Europe (e.g. Portsmouth) didn't?

Yet again, there is such a difference between 2+3 attitudes in the UK vs continental Europe. Almost certainly, the reason for poor public transport in the UK is because there is total ignorance of what happens in the rest of Europe.

 

[PhilipW]

Not quite sure why there is all this anti SWT sentiment amongst this threasd with the inference that all SWT passengers are snobs and should shut up.

All longer distance SWT area trains used to be 2+2. It is only when the service was "improved" with new trains that 3+2 was introduced on Portsmouth trains and some Southampton ones.

I don't see the arugument that any longer distance trains that also picks up commuters nearer to London is to be classified as a "commuter train" and so loses any right to have 2+2 seating.

All the proposed 1200 new carriages for Thameslink are to be 2+2. Good for them. Why approve that but attack SWT passengers for wanting similar ????

 

[swt_passenger]

... The seats are quid hard and these are undoubtedly commuter stock.

...and the people complaining most loudly are commuters.

 

[WestCoast]

I don't accept arguments that 450 passengers should be grateful because there are other people who have to put up with 142s.

I am not saying you should be grateful at all, you pay a lot of money for your ticket and SWT should do more. I am not anti-SWT commuters at all either, neither are you all snobs.

BUT when the media goes on consistently about how bad it is for the South Eastern commuters (BBC Breakfast had a lengthy piece this morning) it does get a little annoying for pacer commuters (who do long distances in some circumstances) in the North, South West and Wales, don't you think? The season tickets aren't that much cheaper!

Just wait until the BBC workers commute to Manchester on a Mid-Cheshire lines Pacer!

 

[Chafford1]

I remember the 442s were occasionally used on Pompey services but when the last Slammers were withdrawn in 2004 444s were used on these services. However, when the SWT franchise was re-let to Stagecoach in 2007 SWT decided to withdraw its 442s in return for reinstating its 458s, since the latter are cheaper to lease. This means that the Portsmouth Line is now operated by outer-surburban units.

Given the nonsensical nature of all this, maybe the hack who wrote the original article for the DM ought to write a detailed critique of the franchising system? I very much doubt that will happen.

Contrast with the trains for the original Portsmouth electrification in 1937 - 1st class corridors, and a full restaurant car service!

 

[ajdunlop]

Notice how relatively rich commuter route into London gets air time for a moan about the size of seats on the new long trains, someone from the BBC travel on them me thinks. I travel the opposite direction towards Southampton and I think SWT moaners don't deserve the limelight when we have one of the best franchises in the country when many commuters in the north have to put up with Northern's stock and people in the Bristol and Wales have to put up with Arriva and FGW's ageing stock, etc.

 

[PhilipW]

Notice how relatively rich commuter route into London gets air time for a moan about the size of seats on the new long trains, someone from the BBC travel on them me thinks. I travel the opposite direction towards Southampton and I think SWT moaners don't deserve the limelight when we have one of the best franchises in the country when many commuters in the north have to put up with Northern's stock and people in the Bristol and Wales have to put up with Arriva and FGW's ageing stock, etc.

It is not the 30/40 min commuters that are complaining about the 3+2 seating. It is the 75/90 min travellers from Havant/Portsmouth and the 105 min travellers from Fareham.

Class 450s may be excellent commuter trains. That is not in question.

As longer distance trains, they are rubbish. That is the argument.

 

[adc82140]

I've just seen the South Today report- What a load of utter claptrap!! I'm not disputing the fact that 3+2 is far from ideal for that route, but the "no 450" campaign have to get a serious reality check- they were quoted in the report as saying that South West Trains should get some "better trains". With what money exactly? I'm sure said commuters would be rather unhappy about a huge fare increase to cover this. And where do such trains come from? The train dealership in town? :roll::roll:

Not once in the report was it mentioned that in fact a lot of rolling stock allocation is down to DfT meddling, rather than the TOCs.

Nor was in mentiond that the 450s are not new stock to the line, but have been in service a good few years now.

 

[PhilipW]

Nor was in mentiond that the 450s are not new stock to the line, but have been in service a good few years now.

..... and everyone has been compagning for years. It is just that the campaign has had a second wind with all this publicity

 

[yorksrob]

It is not the 30/40 min commuters that are complaining about the 3+2 seating. It is the 75/90 min travellers from Havant/Portsmouth and the 105 min travellers from Fareham.

Class 450s may be excellent commuter trains. That is not in question.

As longer distance trains, they are rubbish. That is the argument.

I suppose it depends on how the loadings change throughout the journey. It might be that lots of people get out after 30/40 mins, so there is more room for the 75/90 min commuters to spread out after 40 mins, in which case there is less reason for complaint.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Worst offender here is the 0718 from Southsea to Waterloo (1P20), booked 12x450. There is plenty of room on this train until Haslemere where it picks up quite a number of people from the 0716 stopper from Havant to Waterloo which is overtaken by 1P20 at Haslemere. At Guildford it gets busier but there are still more seats than people, and this is the same at Woking. The problem is that towards the rear there is enough room for everyone to sit, but many people don't wish to take the middle seat and stand for the 25 minute run to Waterloo. People cannot really complain about standing when they choose not to avail themselves of the middle seats.

Towards the middle and especially the front the story is different, lots of people stand as there are no seats available, whether the train is a 450 or 444 is irrelevant as there are insufficient seats for the number of people travelling.

The 450s are not ideal, but what is the alternative? And I it wasn't that long ago that 3+2 was 'De Rigeur' on the 4-VEPs that ran the same routes the 450s are doing now.

I think that sending 10x444 on an Alton run in the morning and evening peaks is part of the problem, quite why the ALUG thinks they are more worthy of 444s than Portsmouth passengers is anyone's guess.

 

[thefab444]

I think that sending 10x444 on an Alton run in the morning and evening peaks is part of the problem, quite why the ALUG thinks they are more worthy of 444s than Portsmouth passengers is anyone's guess.

It's hardly a peak run; 0825 WAT - AON and 1044 AON - WAT. Just a way of getting the stock out of the way for a bit.

The only other 444 services to Alton are booked for 5 car operation anyway, 0653 WAT - AON, 1625 WAT - AON, 1925 WAT - AON, 0844 AON - WAT, 1814 AON - WAT, 2115 AON - WAT.