Destination blind

[Basil Jet]

I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

--
Spud

[e27002 aurora]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack of
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

--
Spud

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

[Recliner]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Recliner

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

[Recliner]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner
Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

I'm not sure how you can blame decisions on seat comfort that were taken
under Labour governments on Thatcher? I wouldn't blame any particular
government for things like that, but if you must blame a government, surely
the decisions were taken in the Brown era?

Of course what we can thank the Thatcher government for are the JLE and
DLR.

[Robert]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

They seem thicker than on the 313s which preceded them.

No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Bollocks. The root of the problem lies in the fire regulations - the
thinner the seat padding the easier it is to pass the tests.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Martin Edwards
Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Yet the quality and comfort of cars continues to increase.

Neil

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Martin Edwards
Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Yet the quality and comfort of cars continues to increase.
Neil

Certainly, but the pressure on railways round London continues to
increase also. It is more about congestion than the quality of cars.

[s***@potato.field]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.

Thatcher was mainly a response to the Fuck The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.

--
Spud

[Martin Edwards]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.
Thatcher was mainly a response to the Fuck The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.
--
Spud

Apart from that, how was your goat hunt?

[s***@potato.field]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:33:29 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.
Thatcher was mainly a response to the Fuck The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.
--
Spud

Apart from that, how was your goat hunt?

If you're going to attenmpt sarcasm at least try and be vaguely intelligable
though judging by the nonsense you spouted above I suspect you find that
difficult.

--
Spud

[Martin Edwards]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:33:29 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.
Thatcher was mainly a response to the Fuck The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.
--
Spud

Apart from that, how was your goat hunt?

If you're going to attenmpt sarcasm at least try and be vaguely intelligable
though judging by the nonsense you spouted above I suspect you find that
difficult.
--
Spud

It's noisy under the bridge today.

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today.

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree with someones
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simply
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point.
What a cliche you are.

--
Spud

[Basil Jet]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today.

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree with someones
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simply
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point.
What a cliche you are.

You say that as if accidentally wasting everyone's time is more
admirable than deliberately wasting everyone's time.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today.

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree with someones
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simply
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point.
What a cliche you are.
--
Spud

If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

[Martin Coffee]

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:25:17 +0000

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.

Either way, who gives a shit about accents. This is english, not french.

--
Spud

[Roland Perry]

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.

It's up to *your* client to decide what to do when it sees (in my
headers):

Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Look on the bright side, at least it's not "charset=windows-1252"

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:11:37 +0000

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.

It's up to *your* client to decide what to do when it sees (in my
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles as
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be parsing
any header lines.

Post by Roland Perry
Look on the bright side, at least it's not "charset=windows-1252"

There is that.

--
Spud

[Roland Perry]

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.

It's up to *your* client to decide what to do when it sees (in my
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles as
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be parsing
any header lines.

A home-made cobbled-together excuse for a client. Self-inflicted injury.

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:28:25 +0000

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles as
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be

parsing

Post by s***@potato.field
any header lines.

A home-made cobbled-together excuse for a client. Self-inflicted injury.

A home-made cobbled together excuse which I doubt you could write and which
allows me to search hundreds of articles from dozens of groups in milliseconds
using regular expressions via the unix command line and filter out the crap
and the good stuff in a far more complex way than any reader program can manage.

--
Spud

[Roland Perry]

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles as
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be

parsing

Post by s***@potato.field
any header lines.

A home-made cobbled-together excuse for a client. Self-inflicted injury.

A home-made cobbled together excuse which I doubt you could write and which
allows me to search hundreds of articles from dozens of groups in milliseconds
using regular expressions via the unix command line and filter out the crap
and the good stuff in a far more complex way than any reader program can manage.

Apart from falling on the floor the moment anyone uses a specified 8-bit
character set.

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:13:07 +0000

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles

as

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be

parsing

Post by s***@potato.field
any header lines.

A home-made cobbled-together excuse for a client. Self-inflicted injury.

A home-made cobbled together excuse which I doubt you could write and which
allows me to search hundreds of articles from dozens of groups in milliseconds
using regular expressions via the unix command line and filter out the crap
and the good stuff in a far more complex way than any reader program can

manage.
Apart from falling on the floor the moment anyone uses a specified 8-bit
character set.

It didn't fall on the floor - its just bytes. Its how 3rd party software
interprets it thats the issue. UTF8 is supported out the box by most modern
linux/unix terminals & editors so character sets weren't a consideration.
I'm genuinely surprised to find out that current software in 2015 still uses
code pages. Couldn't be much more out of date if it used EBCDIC.

Anyway, this is a discussion for another group.

--
Spud

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.

It's up to *your* client to decide what to do when it sees (in my
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I don't have a client, I have a downloader program which dumps the articles as
files for me to view later using an editor of my choice - which won't be parsing
any header lines.

A home-made cobbled-together excuse for a client. Self-inflicted injury.

Yes, no wonder his posts are so badly composed and misspelt.

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:00:32 +0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
Yes, no wonder his posts are so badly composed and misspelt.

Miss Pelt , lovely woman.

However some of us have jobs to do and can't spent 30 mins reading through
entire threads so I let the machine do the heavy lifting for me.

--
Spud

[Mizter T]

Post by s***@potato.field
[...]
Either way, who gives a shit about accents. This is english, not french.

In that vein, capital letters with proper nouns please M. Spud.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:25:17 +0000

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Martin Coffee

Post by Martin Edwards
If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

And if you have Linux the spell checker will add it for you.

It's nowt to do with Windows vs Linux. My Windows client has a
spell-checker that adds the acute on cliché.

Just a shame your spell checker apparently uses 8 bit ascii which can resolve
to a number of different characters depending on the code page loaded, rather
than doing it properly and using UTF8.
Either way, who gives a shit about accents. This is english, not french.
--
Spud

Tu parles?

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:34:47 +0000

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today.

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree with

someones

Post by s***@potato.field
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simply
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point.
What a cliche you are.
--
Spud

If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

Thanks for the heads up. Next time I have the misfortune to have to use
Windows I'll give it a go.

Is that it? You all spent now? Go have a lie down.

--
Spud

[Martin Edwards]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:34:47 +0000

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +0000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today.

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree with

someones

Post by s***@potato.field
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simply
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point.
What a cliche you are.
--
Spud

If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map.

Thanks for the heads up. Next time I have the misfortune to have to use
Windows I'll give it a go.
Is that it? You all spent now? Go have a lie down.
--
Spud

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:34:05 +000

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:34:47 +000

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:30:40 +000

Post by Martin Edwards
It's noisy under the bridge today

Oh look - Idiots Guide to Debating, skill #1: If you don't agree wit

someone

Post by s***@potato.field
opinion but you can't think of a half decent counter argument then simpl
accuse them of trolling which removes the need for you to debate the point
What a cliche you are
-
Spu

If you have Windows, you can get the acute accent with Character Map

Thanks for the heads up. Next time I have the misfortune to have to us
Windows I'll give it a go
Is that it? You all spent now? Go have a lie down
-
Spu

A much better version:

You're even the main character in the video

-
Spu

[e27002 aurora]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Recliner
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.
Thatcher was mainly a response to the Fuck The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.

BIG AMEN.

[j***@pyromancer.net]

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

The high water mark for comfort on ordinary stock was Mk1 first class
compartments - the compartments are actually more comfortable than the
open firsts, as the seat bases in the compartments are also sprung,
whereas the opens are not - when the Mk1s were built, proper 1st class
always meant compartments, first opens were basically dining cars.

Everything since then has been a downgrade in comfort.

[Recliner]

Post by j***@pyromancer.net

Post by Recliner
Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

The high water mark for comfort on ordinary stock was Mk1 first class
compartments - the compartments are actually more comfortable than the
open firsts, as the seat bases in the compartments are also sprung,
whereas the opens are not - when the Mk1s were built, proper 1st class
always meant compartments, first opens were basically dining cars.
Everything since then has been a downgrade in comfort.

I recently visited the French railway museum in Mulhouse, and they have
many seats from older trains placed so you can sit in them while watching
videos or listening to the audio guide. Very comfortable some of them are,
too.

[d***@yahoo.co.uk]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:57:11 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by j***@pyromancer.net
The high water mark for comfort on ordinary stock was Mk1 first class
compartments - the compartments are actually more comfortable than the
open firsts, as the seat bases in the compartments are also sprung,
whereas the opens are not - when the Mk1s were built, proper 1st class
always meant compartments, first opens were basically dining cars.
Everything since then has been a downgrade in comfort.

I recently visited the French railway museum in Mulhouse, and they have
many seats from older trains placed so you can sit in them while watching
videos or listening to the audio guide. Very comfortable some of them are,
too.

Conversely when taken on my first trip to the continent we visited
Italy. Travel from Milan onwards was by train and we were being
guided by my mothers Aunt who due to a penchant for swarthy Italian
waiters had made similar journeys before. On her advice we had each
brought a cushion a practice she had picked up from the locals as
much of FS stock still had wooden seats.
This was around 1961.

G.Harman

[e27002 aurora]

Post by j***@pyromancer.net

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Yes, the thickness of the cushions seems to be proportional to the age of
the train. There have been articles on this topic in Modern Railways.

The high water mark for comfort on ordinary stock was Mk1 first class
compartments - the compartments are actually more comfortable than the
open firsts, as the seat bases in the compartments are also sprung,
whereas the opens are not - when the Mk1s were built, proper 1st class
always meant compartments, first opens were basically dining cars.
Everything since then has been a downgrade in comfort.

First Class is something I did not enjoy back in the 50s, 60, and 70s.
However, I do recall standard class Mk 1s as being comfortable enough.
It would be churlish to criticize the various iterations of the Mk 2.
They were a work in progress and each version was an improvement.

The HST Mk 3s in their original format were outstanding. I remember
my first journey in one from Reading. The comfort was notable as was
the acceleration. And, I enjoyed the new style buffet.

Since then none of the refurbishments have taken them anywhere near
their original standard of comfort.

In 1994 I moved to Los Angeles after living back in the UK for six
years. AT the first opportunity I took a ride on the brand new Blue
Line to Long Beach. One of my first observations was how
uncomfortable the seating was. The seats in LA Metro cars are not
particularly big and are basically GRP with the thinnest layer of
upholstering.

"Aha" I thought "At least back in the UK the seats are much more
comfortable, even on the London Underground!". :-)

[Robert]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Tried an ET423 on the S-Bahn in München?

[c***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Robert

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Tried an ET423 on the S-Bahn in München?
--
Robert

Yes, it was awful. I'm not in a hurry to repeat the experience.

John

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by c***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Robert

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:49:46 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether its
what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space, a lack

of

Post by s***@potato.field
handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would wake the dead
and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are too narrow for
anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Thats something I'd forgotten - seat padding or lack thereof. It seems its
gone out of fashion with train builders and now we're supposed to sit on
upholstered shelves. The 378s on London Overground are particularly bad.

Tried an ET423 on the S-Bahn in München?
--
Robert

Yes, it was awful. I'm not in a hurry to repeat the experience.
John

Could be worse. Many trains on the New York City Subway have only
benches and no upholstering at all.

[Basil Jet]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Could be worse. Many trains on the New York City Subway have only
benches and no upholstering at all.

I've never found sitting on benches in parks or plastic chairs in
meeting halls too onerous. I suppose the real question is what is the
ride quality like... if it's very bumpy, some cushioning would help.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether
its what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space,
a lack of handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would
wake the dead and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are
too narrow for anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.
Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

Seats? Luxury! I remember them. Nowadays we have to stand.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.

Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.

1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways. Conversely they encouraged immigration of
unqualified low skilled labour. This caused a population increase
mainly in the London area.

We now have a government which for all of its many faults is trying to
come to grips with these issues. We are already seeing great
improvement. But, these things will take time. New routes are being
built. And, new rolling stock is on order.

[Jeremy Double]

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether
its what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space,
a lack of handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would
wake the dead and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are
too narrow for anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.
Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

Seats? Luxury! I remember them. Nowadays we have to stand.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.
Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.
1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways.

In a system run by private enterprise, surely it should have been the
private companies (Railtrack, the TOCs, the ROSCOs) that should have
invested in the railways?

But the private companies have frequently got it wrong, such as not
foreseeing that increases in frequency would also increase demand (e.g.
Virgin Cross Country and TransPennine when they acquired new trains).

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Jeremy Double

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether
its what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space,
a lack of handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would
wake the dead and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are
too narrow for anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.
As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.
Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

Seats? Luxury! I remember them. Nowadays we have to stand.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.
Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.
1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways.

In a system run by private enterprise, surely it should have been the
private companies (Railtrack, the TOCs, the ROSCOs) that should have
invested in the railways?

Transportation (cue the parish language police) is an essential
service. In a sense the state as a whole is the customer.

Post by Jeremy Double
But the private companies have frequently got it wrong, such as not
foreseeing that increases in frequency would also increase demand (e.g.
Virgin Cross Country and TransPennine when they acquired new trains).

Companies are far from infallible. Also keep in mind that issues like
rolling stock renewal are being micromanaged from Whitehall. Our
civil servants certainly can have a role in determining the level of
service required. But trains bought in the market place by the
ROSCO's may have given a more economic fleet than the IEPs. That
said, I am optimistic that Hitachi are producing a good product.

[j***@pyromancer.net]

Do train designers even know what windows are for?

TBH, it's probably assumed that everyone will be looking at a screen
of some kind for the entire journey, and on a commuter service that's
probably accurate. I suspect if forward view ever makes a come back,
it will be via a front-facing camera in the cab, and streaming video
to passengers' devices.

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Basil Jet
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

Really good for you. GOD bless you.

Regards
Products that you can get online
http://goo.gl/wKTPhC