I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.

Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?

Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
haven't been expressed than already have been.

This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.

I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.

MIG wrote:

> I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.
>
> Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
> for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
> thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?
>
> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> haven't been expressed than already have been.
>


I've only been in a Pendolino once, from Euston to Central.
I had a table seat in Standard Class, mostly to myself all the way, and
thought it was OK, definitely more aeroplane like than train though.

The X2000 i was on from Malmo to Stockholm was far worse - that was an
airline seat, with no window view, and travelling backwards. That's the
worst rail journey I've ever had.


> This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
>
> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.


I'd rather take the longer route on a GNER Mallard at the weekend and
go weekend first.

I agree the interiors are a bit cramped but I can put up with that.

My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
to happen on the new trains.

I wouldn't mind a London-Glasgow trip on a Pacer as long at it was
running at full track speed and had bogies fitted!

MIG wrote:

> I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.
> 
> Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
> for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
> thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?
> 
> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> haven't been expressed than already have been.
>


This is a pic what you are talking about

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/17262134/in/set-411029/


> This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
> 
> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.
> 


I went in one to Nuneaton last year. Carriage stank of piddle. Couldn't
face going back in one so returned from Leamington in a 165 to
Paddington. Came to the same conclusion. Criticism has been stifled. I
would prefer an Electrostar and would happily pay the same fare over
again to make the trip in a CIG.

Henry Law

"MIG"  wrote in message
news:1122154523.686422.305420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.
>
> Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
> for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
> thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?
>
> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> haven't been expressed than already have been.
>
> This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
>
> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.
>

In a Pacer, the ride is no better than the top of a double decker bus.
I'm absolutely sure the Pendolino wasn't that bad.
4 wheel railbuses always give a truly appalling ride.
Regards   Mike.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:


> Criticism has been stifled.


Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589937.html
(08 944 at Reading, 1 Jun 1985)

"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" wrote:

> 
> 4 wheel railbuses always give a truly appalling ride.


Not IME. Pacers give an appalling ride on jointed track, and they're not
good on curves. But give them a long straight stretch of CWR and they're
only marginally worse than Sprinters. Where they score over most other
vehicles, of course, is in the views: big wide picture windows, and seat
backs generally low enough to allow an unobstructed view down the full
length of the carriage.

I commute on a line that features 142s, 150s, 156s and 158s, and I
actually prefer the 142s, though that's mainly because it's so much
easier to get a bicycle aboard a 142.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

On 23 Jul 2005 14:35:23 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.
>
>Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
>for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
>thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?
>
>Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
>haven't been expressed than already have been.


Just like Voyagers then :-)


>This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
>
>I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.


I don't know about Pacers but I'd certainly prefer an outer suburban
set like a 166. They don't go so fast though...

Besdt regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:52:40 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote in
<132ebekpi17tl$.1s6lhbrg8ypqi$.dlg@40tude.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
> 
> > Criticism has been stifled.
> 
> Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.


Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
about to sit next to us on the train.

<http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Joyce Whitchurch wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
[...]

> I commute on a line that features 142s, 150s, 156s and 158s, and I
> actually prefer the 142s, though that's mainly because it's so much
> easier to get a bicycle aboard a 142.


But you didn't say 'Hello' the afternoon you sat next to me on a 150
after putting your bike opposite, did you? ;-)

(In all fairness, at the time I wasn't quite sure it was you so I
didn't say anything either!)

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:pop5e1l74sht5g1q0ra68826rpfd7qctfa@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:52:40 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote in
> <132ebekpi17tl$.1s6lhbrg8ypqi$.dlg@40tude.net>, seen in uk.railway:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>
>> > Criticism has been stifled.
>>
>> Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.
>
> Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
> little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
> about to sit next to us on the train.
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>


It's him alright :(

"I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is not 
artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
locally, to get them changed."

Which explains:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

>
>I've only been in a Pendolino once, from Euston to Central.
>I had a table seat in Standard Class, mostly to myself all the way, and
>thought it was OK, definitely more aeroplane like than train though.
>
>The X2000 i was on from Malmo to Stockholm was far worse - that was an
>airline seat, with no window view, and travelling backwards. That's the
>worst rail journey I've ever had.
>
>> This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
>>
>> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.
>
>I'd rather take the longer route on a GNER Mallard at the weekend and
>go weekend first.

Now that is worth it..all the way.

> I wouldn't mind a London-Glasgow trip on a Pacer as long
> at it was running at full track speed and had bogies fitted!

-------------------------------------------

I was still active as a rail photojournalist when 140 001,
the prototype of the 2-car Pacer fleet, first appeared.

I enjoyed many demo runs up & down the main and branch
lines of the UK and one of the party tricks of the BR Derby
Research Centre team was to balance a 50p on its edge
on the floor as we bowled along!

My most memorable run was at the end of a programme in
the West Highlands of Scotland. We ran from Mallaig to
Fort William for a 45 minute lunch stop, then non-stop all the
way to Preston. During the descents of both Beattock and Shap,
the 140 was snicked out of gear so that we could coast
downhill at way above its normal maximum speed --- around
85 to 90 mph I recall. The ride was still silky smooth on the
WCML of over 20 years ago.


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

0.7ohm Drop Shunt schrieb:


> The X2000 i was on from Malmo to Stockholm was far worse - that was an
> airline seat, with no window view, and travelling backwards. That's the
> worst rail journey I've ever had.


When I took the X2000 I travelled forward, with window view, and really 
enjoyed the ride .... much moother than Pendolino.

-- 
tobias benjamin khler ____________________________________ tbk@uncia.de
.._______..__________.._______.._________.     <>_<>          <>_<>
|  |_|  || |_|  |_| ||  |_|  || |_| |_| | .---|'"`|---.  .---|'"`|---.
"-o---o-""-oo----oo-""-o---o-""-oo---oo-""o"O-OO-OO-O"o""o"O-OO-OO-O"o"_

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> "Mike Cawood, HND BIT" wrote:
> >
> > 4 wheel railbuses always give a truly appalling ride.
>
> Not IME. Pacers give an appalling ride on jointed track, and they're not
> good on curves. But give them a long straight stretch of CWR and they're
> only marginally worse than Sprinters. Where they score over most other
> vehicles, of course, is in the views: big wide picture windows, and seat
> backs generally low enough to allow an unobstructed view down the full
> length of the carriage.
>
> I commute on a line that features 142s, 150s, 156s and 158s, and I
> actually prefer the 142s, though that's mainly because it's so much
> easier to get a bicycle aboard a 142.



For some reason, ride quality has never mattered all that much to me.
At least, nowhere near as much as being able to see out or having
accommodation for the various soft and knobbly parts of my body.

Rich Mackin wrote:

> "Ross"  wrote:
> 
>>Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
>>little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
>>about to sit next to us on the train.
>>
>><http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
> 
> It's him alright :(
> 
> "I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is not 
> artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
> locally, to get them changed."
> 
> Which explains:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/


Eh?

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/MacCookie <- further adventures

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:57:31 UTC, Ross  
wrote:

: Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
: little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
: about to sit next to us on the train.

I was worried about this though:

"I have used a wide variety of cameras, starting with a Box Brownie 
120, and including a Selfix 820, Super Ikonta 531 6x9, Linhof Technika
6x7, Leica M, Nikon F2/F3, Olympus Trip and XA and Canonet."

Henry, why on earth would you want anything more complicated that a 
Box Brownie 120? Do you honestly think it's worth paying for all the 
extra complication of focussing lenses, variable shutter speeds and 
through-lens viewfinders? Surely people would rather have a basic 
reliable photographic system than all this expensive modern 
complication?

Ian (I use an Ihagee Exa 1 myself)


--

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:35:23 UTC, "MIG"  
wrote:

: Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
: haven't been expressed than already have been.

Don't you wonder why some of us like them (thoiugh the windows are 
rather small) and have said so? I now schedule meetings in London, if 
I can, so I can get the 16.45 Pendolino from Euston to Edinburgh 
rather than anything GNER. 

Ian

--

Ross wrote:


> Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
> little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
> about to sit next to us on the train.
> 
> <http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
> 


Never mind Henry, I'll sit with you! But I've promised
not to criticise new trains in case anyone is put off
from using trains by reading my comments on uk.railway,
so we'll have to chat about rubbish in the streets instead.

Charlie

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-j8s5BtNXo57S@localhost...

>
> Henry, why on earth would you want anything more complicated that a
> Box Brownie 120? Do you honestly think it's worth paying for all the
> extra complication of focussing lenses, variable shutter speeds and
> through-lens viewfinders? Surely people would rather have a basic
> reliable photographic system than all this expensive modern
> complication?


ROTFL!!! Nice one, Ian.

>Don't you wonder why some of us like them (thoiugh the windows are
>rather small) and have said so? I now schedule meetings in London, if
>I can, so I can get the 16.45 Pendolino from Euston to Edinburgh
>rather than anything GNER.



Well, of course I wonder.  All this time, I saw some of the discussion
and assumed it was the usual situation where something is to someone's
taste and not to someone else's.

Then I finally travelled in one and found that, despite not being
subject to the restrictions that affect aircraft design, the future of
railways is an ambience considerably worse than that of a Boeing 737.
In the latter, your shoulder isn't jammed into a sloping wall that is
two inches thicker than it needs to be.

Why do many modern railway carriages (including those on Underground)
have to have such thick, chunky walls?  Desiros don't.  They have flat,
thin walls that you can lean against without pain and a fair amount of
window area.  The Junipers aren't bad, but have a chunky ridge (at
least not a sharp one).

Electrostars are not so nice (although much better than Pendolinos).
The 376s, for example, are full of thick, chunky things you can't lean
against, and have an unnecessarily narrow, sloping profile, apparently
designed for tilt.  Hardly likely on South Eastern suburban services.

Henry Law wrote:

 > Criticism has been stifled.

Nobody can stifle criticism on here - but it is pointless, since
nothing is actually going to change.

Charlie

MIG wrote:


> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> haven't been expressed than already have been.


Soemone will be along shortly to dismiss you as a trainspotter.

Charlie

"naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message
news:1122156594.787229.142520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> I agree the interiors are a bit cramped but I can put up with that.
>
> My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
> that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
> completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
> to happen on the new trains.
>

Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite relaxing, in fact on a 221 this
week I found it quite boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt rather
than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.


> I wouldn't mind a London-Glasgow trip on a Pacer as long at it was
> running at full track speed and had bogies fitted!


Then it wouldn't be a Pacer...

I also don't find the interiors cramped (I'm 6ft) - and still feel reassured
by the comments of senior engineers that in the unlikely event of an
accident the Pendolino bodyshell is likely to be the strongest and safest in
the UK today. I'd trade that for thin walls and massive windows any day.

TM

On 24 Jul 2005 03:32:36 -0700, MIG wrote:


> Why do many modern railway carriages (including those on Underground)
> have to have such thick, chunky walls?


In the case of stock with sliding (as opposed to swing-plug) doors, the
thickness must accommodate the doors, and presumably it is easier to
design the rest of the fixtures and fittings to be the same throughout
the coach, rather than smaller around the doors. 

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628972.html
(D2991 (Class 07) at Eastleigh Works, Nov 1988)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> On 24 Jul 2005 03:32:36 -0700, MIG wrote:
>
> > Why do many modern railway carriages (including those on Underground)
> > have to have such thick, chunky walls?
>
> In the case of stock with sliding (as opposed to swing-plug) doors, the
> thickness must accommodate the doors, and presumably it is easier to
> design the rest of the fixtures and fittings to be the same throughout
> the coach, rather than smaller around the doors.




That's true, but it's not really what I was talking about.  It doesn't
apply eg to Pendolinos or Jubilee Line stock or even the 376s, where
chunkiness is all round the standing areas.

I'm talking about the craze for thick, hollow, plastic structures at
angles that you can't lean on.  For example, instead of a handrail
screwed into the wall, you have a huge six-inch thick structure coming
out of the wall with a recess in it for the handrail.  Why waste all
this space?

Chris Tolley wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
> 
>>Criticism has been stifled.
> 
> Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.
> 


Sorry, Virgin's trains are the most wonderful in the world. Not like
foreign rubbish such as the TGV.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/21179359/in/set-513623/



Henry Law

Tony Miles wrote:


> I also don't find the interiors cramped (I'm 6ft) - and still feel reassured
> by the comments of senior engineers that in the unlikely event of an
> accident the Pendolino bodyshell is likely to be the strongest and safest in
> the UK today. I'd trade that for thin walls and massive windows any day.
> 


Funnily enough, I'd trade comfort and ambience for safety, after all, 
I'm far more likely to get killed or seriously injured on the roads, but 
often drive in preference to taking the train for exactly those reasons, 
given the seats on Pendos seem to have been designed for a target 
customer base of Oompa Lumpas.

Mind you, I'd probably even trade journey time for comfort and ambience.

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> Ross wrote:
> 
>> Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
>> little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
>> about to sit next to us on the train.
>>
>> <http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
>>
> 
> Never mind Henry, I'll sit with you! But I've promised
> not to criticise new trains in case anyone is put off
> from using trains by reading my comments on uk.railway,
> so we'll have to chat about rubbish in the streets instead.
> 
> Charlie
> 


I've given up using trains locally. The last straw is the new ticket
machines plus a lot more cancellations. You have to allow 20 minutes to
buy a ticket at Brighton now so might as well go by car or bus (at half
the fare)

Henry Law

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:35:23 UTC, "MIG"  
> wrote:
> 
> : Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> : haven't been expressed than already have been.
> 
> Don't you wonder why some of us like them (thoiugh the windows are 
> rather small) and have said so? I now schedule meetings in London, if 
> I can, so I can get the 16.45 Pendolino from Euston to Edinburgh 
> rather than anything GNER. 
> 
> Ian
> 


If you are in such a hurry why don't you fly?

Henry Law

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> MIG wrote:
> 
>> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
>> haven't been expressed than already have been.
> 
> Soemone will be along shortly to dismiss you as a trainspotter.
> 
> Charlie
> 


He is just prejudiced.Must be an old fogey. You WILL like ALL new
trains. Or else.

Henry Law

>Charlie Hulme wrote:
>> MIG wrote:
>
>>> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
>>> haven't been expressed than already have been.
>
>
>> Soemone will be along shortly to dismiss you as a trainspotter.
>
>
>> Charlie
>
>He is just prejudiced.Must be an old fogey. You WILL like ALL new
>trains. Or else.
>
>Henry Law




I've wound up some people so much at times that I am not as brave as
you about letting them know how to find me.  I am a tall, blonde, 23
year old woman who lives in Northumberland.  Honest.

> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.


Worse than a pacer.... wow they must be bad ! Last pacer I went on had a
suspect noise coming from the front axle, had sick all over the seats in
front and all over the broken bog, severe hunting on good quality track, and
engine noise and rattle loud enough to remove your fillings. Not sure I'd
want to go from Gloucester to Scotland in one of those. Even less sure it
would make it that far.

Incidentally, while talking a chief P.Way engineer for S.Wales he blamed
Pacers for more rail ware in two years than all the other traffic over
valley lines in the last 40 years. Ironically they would probably do less
damage on mainlines than bendy branch lines.

>Last pacer I went on had a suspect noise coming from the front axle, had >sick all over the seats in front and all over the broken bog, severe hunting >on good quality track, and engine noise and rattle loud enough to remove >your fillings.



I certainly wouldn't want that on a train ride; I get enough of that at
home.

"Ewan"  wrote in message 
news:3kh0ksFtqcu3U1@individual.net...

> Rich Mackin wrote:
>> "Ross"  wrote:
>>
>>>Still, Henry's kindly pointed us to a location where we can learn a
>>>little about him and see who to move away from should he appear to be
>>>about to sit next to us on the train.
>>>
>>><http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
>>
>> It's him alright :(
>>
>> "I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is 
>> not artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
>> locally, to get them changed."
>>
>> Which explains:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/
>
> Eh?


8-) </msn>

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-
pn2-dP2bPgDSomUB@localhost:


> Don't you wonder why some of us like them (thoiugh the windows are 
> rather small) and have said so? I now schedule meetings in London, if 
> I can, so I can get the 16.45 Pendolino from Euston to Edinburgh 
> rather than anything GNER. 


Yes, I do wonder. Some of my enthusiast friends dismiss them out of hand 
as rubbish; they're not loco hauled, they're new, they must be cr*p. I 
hope I'm a little more objective - I certainly don't think they're /bad/, 
but are they really an improvement on what preceded them? My three short 
journeys to date on Pendolinos are perhaps not representative; none was 
well loaded, so my failure to find them claustrophobic may be influenced 
by that. 'Intimate' might be a better description than 'claustrophobic'. 
The tilt wasn't noticeable, never mind nausea-inducing. The seats were 
comfortable, though hardly roomy; they ran more-or-less on time; the 
general ambience was good; I noticed no unpleasant odours (unlike most 
Voyagers I've been on) from the tiolets. Many seats, though, had poor or 
no outside view.

The MkIIIs may have been overdue to be replaced. They were certainly 
becoming very scruffy towards the end, but so would any train where 
internal maintenence is neglected, Pendolinos included. I don't dislike 
Pendolinos; I just think that the only real /improvement/ over the old 
order is some minor reduction in journey time, for which we've paid very 
highly in disruption for a considerable time. They're OK; they should 
have been better.

So I do wonder why some praise them so highly. Could it be, that just as 
some unjustly disparage anything new, there are others who automatically 
assume that newer is better?

Rick.

>I just think that the only real /improvement/ over the old
>order is some minor reduction in journey time, for which we've paid very
>highly in disruption for a considerable time. They're OK; they should
>have been better.



I've cut out a lot, but that point about journey time has been made a
few times and I hadn't responded.  I don't make the link between the
journey times and the Pendolino accommodation.

Once the upgrade was finished, journey times were going to be quicker
(if not much quicker than in the 1970s).  There are plenty of 125 or
140 mph trains around, including some that can tilt, and many more that
were originally designed to, however many minutes' difference that
makes.

They don't have the ambience of a Pendolino though.  I don't think it's
a price we have to pay for the journey time.

tobias b köhler wrote:

> 0.7ohm Drop Shunt schrieb:
>
> > The X2000 i was on from Malmo to Stockholm was far worse - that was an
> > airline seat, with no window view, and travelling backwards. That's the
> > worst rail journey I've ever had.
>
> When I took the X2000 I travelled forward, with window view, and really
> enjoyed the ride .... much moother than Pendolino.
>


I cant really complain about the smoothness of the X2000 to be honest,
just the seat/window provision. I'm sure I would have enjoyed the
journey if I had been in a better positioned seat, and had not changed
from one of the excellent Danish MU's on the Oresund Link.

MIG schrieb:

> I had my first Pendolino ride today.  Couldn't believe it.
> 
> Cramped and claustrophobic.  Three inches of window view and no room
> for even a small person's shoulder.  Why not take two inches off the
> thick hollow wall to make room for a shoulder?
> 
> Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
> haven't been expressed than already have been.
> 
> This is not a hatred of new trains; I think Desiros are rather good.
> 
> I would rather travel to Scotland in a 313 or Pacer than a Pendolino.
> 



Hello,

this clausto thing certainly coincides how wide and tall you are. What 
about those bus seats which can be shifted towards the aisle?

This would alleviate the problem, would'nt it?

best regards


G.fried

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:14:24 +0100, Henry Law wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>>Criticism has been stifled.
>> Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.
> 
> Sorry, Virgin's trains are the most wonderful in the world.


See, *that's* your problem, Henry. When someone disagrees with you, you
just write something daft. That's one of the main reasons I am not
convinced by what you write. That and the fact that it is often at
variance with my own personal experience. How much personal experience
do you actually have of Pendolinos?
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906836.html
(47 575 at London Kings Cross, 4 Jun 1999)

On 24 Jul 2005 04:31:45 -0700, MIG wrote:


> I'm talking about the craze for thick, hollow, plastic structures at
> angles that you can't lean on.  For example, instead of a handrail
> screwed into the wall, you have a huge six-inch thick structure coming
> out of the wall with a recess in it for the handrail.  Why waste all
> this space?


Without seeing one of these, I wouldn't really like to speculate. There
could be all sorts of plausible explanations.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683736.html
(142 022 at Halifax, 13 Oct 2000)

>Without seeing one of these, I wouldn't really like to speculate. There
>could be all sorts of plausible explanations.



If you travel on the Jubilee Line you will find good examples.
Unfortunately, the most plausible explanation is stupidity in the
design.

In article ,
0.7ohm Drop Shunt  wrote:

>
>tobias b k=F6hler wrote:
>> 0.7ohm Drop Shunt schrieb:
>>
>> > The X2000 i was on from Malmo to Stockholm was far worse - that was an
>> > airline seat, with no window view, and travelling backwards. That's the
>> > worst rail journey I've ever had.
>>
>> When I took the X2000 I travelled forward, with window view, and really
>> enjoyed the ride .... much moother than Pendolino.
>
>I cant really complain about the smoothness of the X2000 to be honest,
>just the seat/window provision. I'm sure I would have enjoyed the
>journey if I had been in a better positioned seat, and had not changed
>from one of the excellent Danish MU's on the Oresund Link.


I very much enjoyed my journeys on X2000s a few years ago - but then
I was travelling 1st, which might make a big difference. I certainly
felt //very// short-changed when the return leg of the trip was on
an old hauled IC.

Andy, wondering if he can contrive using the overnight Stockholm-
Kiruna instead of SAS-internal to get to/from a meeting in Kiruna next
month..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
		http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Ross wrote:

> 
> But you didn't say 'Hello' the afternoon you sat next to me on a 150
> after putting your bike opposite, did you? ;-)
> 
> (In all fairness, at the time I wasn't quite sure it was you so I
> didn't say anything either!)


I'm not sure it was me either! If I'd just knocked off work, I was
probably asleep anyway.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

Henry Law  wrote:


> Not like
> foreign rubbish such as the TGV.


You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more acceptable.

We've got yet to see what refurbished Atlantiques will look like.

-- 
inversez "kertanguy" et "de" pour me joindre

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:26:17 UTC, "Jack Taylor"  
wrote:

: 
: "Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-j8s5BtNXo57S@localhost...
: >
: > Henry, why on earth would you want anything more complicated that a
: > Box Brownie 120? Do you honestly think it's worth paying for all the
: > extra complication of focussing lenses, variable shutter speeds and
: > through-lens viewfinders? Surely people would rather have a basic
: > reliable photographic system than all this expensive modern
: > complication?
: 
: ROTFL!!! Nice one, Ian.

Thanks. there's actually a semi serious point. Bearing in mind that 
colour film is tolerant to at least an f-stop each way (or a factor of
two each way in shutter speed), and that for any reasonable aperture 
any reasonable lens will have a hyperfocal distance from 10m or less 
to infinity, what is the point of metering systems which set exposure 
to 1%, or complicated autofocus?

Damn it. Now I'll have to move to Hoveactually.

Ian

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:32:36 UTC, "MIG"  
wrote:

: Then I finally travelled in one and found that, despite not being
: subject to the restrictions that affect aircraft design, the future of
: railways is an ambience considerably worse than that of a Boeing 737.
: In the latter, your shoulder isn't jammed into a sloping wall that is
: two inches thicker than it needs to be.

One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way 
the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something 
sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I 
thought. 

Ian


--

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:17:43 UTC, Henry Law 
 wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:35:23 UTC, "MIG"  
: > wrote:
: > 
: > : Horrible.  Appalling.  Shockingly awful.  Amazed that stronger views
: > : haven't been expressed than already have been.
: > 
: > Don't you wonder why some of us like them (thoiugh the windows are 
: > rather small) and have said so? I now schedule meetings in London, if 
: > I can, so I can get the 16.45 Pendolino from Euston to Edinburgh 
: > rather than anything GNER. 
 
: If you are in such a hurry why don't you fly?

What on earth are you talking about? The 16.45 Pendolino takes 
/longer/ to get to Edinburgh (arrives 22.08) than the 17.00 GNER 
service (arrives 21.24).

I thought you kept saying that passengers would choose longer journey 
times if it meant a more comfortable travelling environment? Well, 
that's precisely what I do.

Ian

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:59:06 UTC, Rick Hughes  wrote:

: "Ian Johnston"  wrote in news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-
: pn2-dP2bPgDSomUB@localhost:
: 
: > Don't you wonder why some of us like them

: Yes, I do wonder....

Fair enough!

: The tilt wasn't noticeable, never mind nausea-inducing. 

I can't tell it's happening unless I check: easiest way is to look 
forward from the back of a coach, when then tilt angle can be quite 
apparent. That it is not - to me, anyway - detectable from the motion 
is, I think, a tribute to some really nice engineering work.

: The seats were 
: comfortable, though hardly roomy; they ran more-or-less on time; the 
: general ambience was good; I noticed no unpleasant odours (unlike most 
: Voyagers I've been on) from the tiolets. Many seats, though, had poor or 
: no outside view.

Agreed on all counts - though some of the toilets are decidedly smelly
outside the train. My chief gripe is the stupid decision only to put 
power points at tables. Like, get with the project guys - wake up and 
check the century ...

: So I do wonder why some praise them so highly. Could it be, that just as 
: some unjustly disparage anything new, there are others who automatically 
: assume that newer is better?

I think there are a lot of people, including many of the general 
public, who do like new things per se. I like Pendolinos because I 
find them fast, comfortable and, thanks to the tilt, fun. I like the 
old stock as well, for other reasons. 

Ian

PS If they had given them a Mallard style blue-and-grey interior, or 
anything more relaxed than frenetic red, I think the internal ambience
would be rather nicer.

In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-NTsFYV1sbfdz@localhost>,
Ian Johnston  wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:26:17 UTC, "Jack Taylor"  
>wrote:
>: 
>: "Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
>: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-j8s5BtNXo57S@localhost...
>: >
>: > Henry, why on earth would you want anything more complicated that a
>: > Box Brownie 120? Do you honestly think it's worth paying for all the
>: > extra complication of focussing lenses, variable shutter speeds and
>: > through-lens viewfinders? Surely people would rather have a basic
>: > reliable photographic system than all this expensive modern
>: > complication?


I couldn't bear to snip that gem..
 

>: ROTFL!!! Nice one, Ian.
>
>Thanks. there's actually a semi serious point. Bearing in mind that 
>colour film is tolerant to at least an f-stop each way (or a factor of
>two each way in shutter speed), and that for any reasonable aperture 
>any reasonable lens will have a hyperfocal distance from 10m or less 
>to infinity, what is the point of metering systems which set exposure 
>to 1%, or complicated autofocus?
>
>Damn it. Now I'll have to move to Hoveactually.


/You're/ worried? Not half as much as I am. I've just bought 
an old Olympus XA. Now I find that the miserable sod's miserable
sod uses one. 

If I start posting Henryesque messages, someone shoot me. Please.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
		"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
						(Peter D. Rieden)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:15:48 UTC, "MIG"  
wrote:

: I've wound up some people so much at times that I am not as brave as
: you about letting them know how to find me.  I am a tall, blonde, 23
: year old woman who lives in Northumberland. 

It's Salman Rushdie!

Ian

--

Stanislas de Kertanguy wrote:

> 
> Henry Law  wrote:
> 
> > Not like
> > foreign rubbish such as the TGV.
> 
> You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
> uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more acceptable.


I could be wrong, but I think that Henry was employing irony.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

Ian Johnston wrote:

> 
> One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way
> the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something
> sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I
> thought.


The idea is good, but it is too small and uncomfortable for me.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:06:44 UTC, John Ray 
 wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > 
: > One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way
: > the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something
: > sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I
: > thought.
: 
: The idea is good, but it is too small and uncomfortable for me.

It's not great, but it's better than a fold down one for me, and a 
hell of a lot better than the non-folduppable ones on Voyagers.

Ian

John Ray  wrote:


> > You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
> > uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more acceptable.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think that Henry was employing irony.


Ok! 

-- 
inversez "kertanguy" et "de" pour me joindre

Rich Mackin wrote:

> "Ewan"  wrote in message 
> news:3kh0ksFtqcu3U1@individual.net...
> 
>>Rich Mackin wrote:
>>
>>>><http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
>>>
>>>"I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is 
>>>not artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
>>>locally, to get them changed."
>>>
>>>Which explains:
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/
>>
>>Eh?
> 
> 8-) </msn>


<fx>
Whooooooosh... as that goes straight over my head!
</fx>

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/MacCookie <- further adventures

In article <1h082ki.58jkp11q0yhcxN%stanislas.kertanguyde@laposte.net>,
Stanislas de Kertanguy  wrote:

>John Ray  wrote:
>
>> > You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
>> > uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more acceptable.
>> 
>> I could be wrong, but I think that Henry was employing irony.
>
>Ok! 


I'm suprised Henry goes in for such new-fangled things. Surely 
coppery or flinty should be good enough for anyone?

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	"When I was young I used to scintillate
                 now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)

"matt"  wrote in message 
news:dc00bf$3t2$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...


> Funnily enough, I'd trade comfort and ambience for safety, after all, I'm 
> far more likely to get killed or seriously injured on the roads, but often 
> drive in preference to taking the train for exactly those reasons, given 
> the seats on Pendos seem to have been designed for a target customer base 
> of Oompa Lumpas.


Wouldn't they get stuck between the armrests?

OT: Just listened to R4 prog about disabled people (inc. PORG's) and 
inappropriate comedy.

Will (POEG).

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:16:51 +0100, Henry Law wrote in
<TwLEe.6763$CF.47606@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> I've given up using trains locally. 


Does that mean you'll also give up posting complaints about the trains
you don't use?

Silly question, really. More chance of them wiring up Boston -
Skegness and using DB class 103 locos to drag our Sprinters.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On 23 Jul 2005 15:09:54 -0700, "naked_draughtsman"
 wrote:


>My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
>that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
>completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
>to happen on the new trains.


Did you sit in the front vehicle?  The ride there differs from the
others in that the others can predict the required tilt from the
vehicle in front (so give a smooth ride), while the front vehicle
can't and so you experience a sharp pull to one side and an equally
violent correction to the other.  That does make me feel rather ill.

The APT didn't have this "predictive tilt" on any vehicle, so I can
see why some people may have felt unwell as a result.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 24 Jul 2005 17:24:21 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way 
>the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something 
>sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I 
>thought. 


I personally use the window sill as an armrest, but find the conduit
underneath (which is supposed to be used as one) slightly annoying.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

> wrote:
>>One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way
>>the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something
>>sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I
>>thought.
>
>
>I personally use the window sill as an armrest, but find the conduit
>underneath (which is supposed to be used as one) slightly annoying.




Where I was sitting there was no window sill to lean on.  The ledge
below the conduit dug into me if I put my arm straight down.  If I
tried to put my elbow on the ledge, there was nowhere for my shoulder
to go, because the conduit is only about three inches high, and above
it there is the ludicrously thick wall sloping sharply inwards.
Perhaps if there had been a window at that point it would have been
different, but a large proportion of passengers won't have that luxury.

I had to put my arm in my lap and sit with my shoulders twisted all the
way to jam them between the unnecessarily thick, sloping wall and the
adjacent passenger, ending up rather stiff.  I am not particularly
broad.

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
news:dc0qaq$7r2d$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article <1h082ki.58jkp11q0yhcxN%stanislas.kertanguyde@laposte.net>,
> Stanislas de Kertanguy  wrote:
>>John Ray  wrote:
>>
>>> > You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
>>> > uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more 
>>> > acceptable.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but I think that Henry was employing irony.
>>
>>Ok!
>
> I'm suprised Henry goes in for such new-fangled things. Surely
> coppery or flinty should be good enough for anyone?


You've been watching too much Blackadder (if that's possible!).

Blackadder: "You don't what irony is, do you, Baldrick?"
Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made out of iron."

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>The APT didn't have this "predictive tilt" on any vehicle, so I can
>see why some people may have felt unwell as a result.



Ah, but it did, towards the end of the development programme.  This
was a modification designed to reduce or eliminate the travel sickness
some people suffered on the APT-P, including me. 

Alas, I never had the chance to ride the modified train, but I gather
it worked very well.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:44:03 +0100 someone who may be Tony Polson
 wrote this:-


>Ah, but it did, towards the end of the development programme.  This
>was a modification designed to reduce or eliminate the travel sickness
>some people suffered on the APT-P, including me. 
>
>Alas, I never had the chance to ride the modified train, but I gather
>it worked very well.


That is my understanding too. However, some on this group claim that
this was not done.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Neil Williams schrieb:

> On 23 Jul 2005 15:09:54 -0700, "naked_draughtsman"
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
>>that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
>>completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
>>to happen on the new trains.
> 
> 
> Did you sit in the front vehicle?  The ride there differs from the
> others in that the others can predict the required tilt from the
> vehicle in front (so give a smooth ride), while the front vehicle
> can't and so you experience a sharp pull to one side and an equally
> violent correction to the other.  That does make me feel rather ill.
> 
> The APT didn't have this "predictive tilt" on any vehicle, so I can
> see why some people may have felt unwell as a result.
> 
> Neil
> 


My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for the 
sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the spectrum 
is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because of their 
geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the spectrum in the 
vehicle movements? There should be some research on the isssue...

cheers

g.fried

G.fried schrieb:

> Neil Williams schrieb:
> 
>> On 23 Jul 2005 15:09:54 -0700, "naked_draughtsman"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
>>> that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
>>> completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
>>> to happen on the new trains.
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you sit in the front vehicle?  The ride there differs from the
>> others in that the others can predict the required tilt from the
>> vehicle in front (so give a smooth ride), while the front vehicle
>> can't and so you experience a sharp pull to one side and an equally
>> violent correction to the other.  That does make me feel rather ill.
>>
>> The APT didn't have this "predictive tilt" on any vehicle, so I can
>> see why some people may have felt unwell as a result.
>>
>> Neil
>>
> 
> My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for the 
> sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the spectrum 
> is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because of their 
> geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the spectrum in the 
> vehicle movements? There should be some research on the isssue...
> 
> cheers
> 
> g.fried


bevor mich jetzt jemand wrgt in Deutsch:

Weiss wer ber Forschung zum Thema berlagerung von Neigebewegungen und 
Vibrationen und die Auswirkung auf belkeit?
Is es fr die Neigetechnik ntig die Streckengeometrie zu ndern um 
damit ohne Telematik (erster Wagen abrupt geneigt) klarzukommen?


danke

G.fried

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:03:37 +0100, John Ray wrote:

> Stanislas de Kertanguy wrote:
>> Henry Law  wrote:
>> 
>>> Not like
>>> foreign rubbish such as the TGV.
>> 
>> You're very much exaggerating. TGV Atlantique&Rseau is indeed
>> uncomfortable, but Duplex and refurbished PSE are much more acceptable.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think that Henry was employing irony.


That may be what he was attempting, but all he managed was sarcasm. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683697.html
(51383 (Class 117) at North Camp, May 1995)

On 24 Jul 2005 18:35:56 +0100, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> If I start posting Henryesque messages, someone shoot me.


Tell us where you'll be and I'll bring a camera. I can even use my XA if
you like...

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683846.html
(158 903 at Manchester Victoria, 23 Jul 2000)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:15:24 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:28:42 +0200, "G.fried" 
: wrote:
: 
: >My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for the 
: >sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the spectrum 
: >is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because of their 
: >geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the spectrum in the 
: >vehicle movements? There should be some research on the isssue...
: 
: I don't think it's the frequency per-se, I think it's the force and
: sudden corrective force occurring repeatedly.

Speaking as an expert in the business end of motion sickness (thank 
goodness for Scopoderm), I reckon the trigger varies hugely from 
person to person, and it's a combination of frequency and motion. I 
can take big, low frequency swells very happily, but there's a 
frequency of corkscrewing which cleans me out in five minutes ...

Ian

Ian Johnston schrieb:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:15:24 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
> 
> : On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:28:42 +0200, "G.fried" 
> : wrote:
> : 
> : >My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for the 
> : >sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the spectrum 
> : >is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because of their 
> : >geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the spectrum in the 
> : >vehicle movements? There should be some research on the isssue...
> : 
> : I don't think it's the frequency per-se, I think it's the force and
> : sudden corrective force occurring repeatedly.
> 
> Speaking as an expert in the business end of motion sickness (thank 
> goodness for Scopoderm), I reckon the trigger varies hugely from 
> person to person, and it's a combination of frequency and motion. I 
> can take big, low frequency swells very happily, but there's a 
> frequency of corkscrewing which cleans me out in five minutes ...
> 


sorry for asking again - I only understand simplified English well ;-)

the main factors are:

- acceleration
- frequency
- direction of the accelerations in 3D

is this correct?

But the answer to my hypothesis is still open. Tilting trains should 
allow us  to go faster on all types of tracks. The hypothesis is that 
this won't be possible certainly not for the first axle but also partly 
in general....
So I think the solution and this is the second part of the hypothesis is 
  that based on odometry/GPS the tilting mechanism should act before 
entering the curve partly to avoid those big tilting movements. But of 
course this is no option if one curve follows another which is the case 
for mountainous areas..

cheers

G.fried

G.fried schrieb:

> Ian Johnston schrieb:
> 
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:15:24 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>> Williams) wrote:
>>
>> : On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:28:42 +0200, "G.fried" 
>> : wrote:
>> : : >My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for 
>> the : >sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the 
>> spectrum : >is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because 
>> of their : >geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the 
>> spectrum in the : >vehicle movements? There should be some research on 
>> the isssue...
>> : : I don't think it's the frequency per-se, I think it's the force and
>> : sudden corrective force occurring repeatedly.
>>
>> Speaking as an expert in the business end of motion sickness (thank 
>> goodness for Scopoderm), I reckon the trigger varies hugely from 
>> person to person, and it's a combination of frequency and motion. I 
>> can take big, low frequency swells very happily, but there's a 
>> frequency of corkscrewing which cleans me out in five minutes ...
>>
> 
> sorry for asking again - I only understand simplified English well ;-)
> 
> the main factors are:
> 
> - acceleration
> - frequency
> - direction of the accelerations in 3D
> 
> is this correct?
> 
> But the answer to my hypothesis is still open. Tilting trains should 
> allow us  to go faster on all types of tracks. The hypothesis is that 
> this won't be possible certainly not for the first axle but also partly 
> in general....
> So I think the solution and this is the second part of the hypothesis is 
>  that based on odometry/GPS the tilting mechanism should act before 
> entering the curve partly to avoid those big tilting movements. But of 
> course this is no option if one curve follows another which is the case 
> for mountainous areas..
> 


as add on the first diagram/data I found

http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rv/h_speed/img/fig_highspeed16.gif
http://www.ave.kth.se/divisions/jvg/projects/SAMBA5.htm
http://62.119.60.67/EPiBrowser/Publikationer/English/R449A.pdf

I will try to understand it...

On 25 Jul 2005 18:49:27 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>Speaking as an expert in the business end of motion sickness (thank 
>goodness for Scopoderm), I reckon the trigger varies hugely from 
>person to person, and it's a combination of frequency and motion. I 
>can take big, low frequency swells very happily, but there's a 
>frequency of corkscrewing which cleans me out in five minutes ...


Quite possibly.

For myself, it's normally unexpected movement.  I can cope with a very
rough sea on a ship, for example, as long as I'm either up on deck or
at least in view of a large window so the movement feels natural.
Below deck I feel decidedly yuck.  I recall there was some research
done on this that pointed to the idea of projecting artificial
horizons in submarines.

With cars, I'm fine regardless how rough the ride so long as I don't
try to read or otherwise not look through the windows.  I find I have
the best journey experience if driving, which is probably down to the
fact that I will be expecting all movements because I'm in control.

On planes, other than the fact that I'm a bit of a nervous flyer, I
can cope with a rough ride so long as I can see out of the window.

Back to the Pendolino, I think the trouble is that my brain doesn't
know what to expect in the front vehicle.  Further back, I know it's a
tilting set and so expect that it will do so (not really much
differently than I do while riding my bicycle at speed) on each
corner, and I'm not confused by this.  If it isn't tilting, I get a
"normal", expected force to one side.  I've experienced both of these
situations (tilt on and off) in one 4-hour journey travelling from MK
Central to Carlisle last week with no ill effects.

The problem occurs in the front vehicle, when I start to feel the
latter force, but then get the former (a sharp, unexpected[1] tilt
correction).  This makes me feel decidedly ill.

From what others have said about the APT having developed "predictive
tilt" but not really had chance to properly test it, it's a shame as I
think it could well have solved that problem[2] as it does in the
Pendolino.  It's also perhaps a shame that VT can't think of a
diplomatic way to "admit" this issue so those who travel in the front
vehicle and do feel ill aren't put off train travel for good.

[1] I know it's coming, but it's such a sudden and uncomfortable
correction, and it's a short one, so my brain can't seem to make sense
of it or get used to it, even on a very lengthy journey.

[2] I'm not convinced that the problem was "over-perfect correction",
as the Pendolino tilt appears to correct out all but the tiniest bit
of sideways force.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:45:16 +0200, "G.fried" 
wrote:


>So I think the solution and this is the second part of the hypothesis is 
>  that based on odometry/GPS the tilting mechanism should act before 
>entering the curve partly to avoid those big tilting movements. But of 
>course this is no option if one curve follows another which is the case 
>for mountainous areas..


Indeed.  Or, for long trains, perhaps the traditional approach; using
a full-length locomotive/power car on one end and a full-length
driving van trailer on the other would allow for the end passenger
vehicle to avoid part of the problem.

(oder auf Deutsch fuer d.e.b.e: Genau...oder fuer laengeren Zuegen
kann man traditionell denken; mit lokbespannten Zuegen mit Steuerwagen
nur fuer Gepaeck kann man teilweise das Problem der ersten Wagen fuer
die Reisenden vermeiden.)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:25:55 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: With cars, I'm fine regardless how rough the ride so long as I don't
: try to read or otherwise not look through the windows. 

On coaches I'm fine if I don't try to read. If I do, I feel grotty 
after half an hour an for a further hour. After that  I'm fine on 
coaches, reading or not, for around a week!

: On planes, other than the fact that I'm a bit of a nervous flyer, I
: can cope with a rough ride so long as I can see out of the window.

I have no problems at all with rough rides on planes. Love it. Being a
glider pilot probably helps ... we tend to seek out the rough bits, 
'cos that's where the lift is.

Ian

"G.fried"  schrieb/wrote uns/us:


>the main factors are:
>
>- acceleration
>- frequency
>- direction of the accelerations in 3D
>
>is this correct?


Due to my personal experience with sea-sickness and everything that
feels like it, is mainly the difference between an expected motion and
an the motion that my belly does. On a ship in rough sea it helps me
to watch the horizon and the waves. I can also close my eyes an enjoy
the ride. But I must not read or let my eyes stick to something in the
ship. I also get sea-sick watching i.e. an roller-coaster ride
standing in a 3D cinema with a wide concave screen.

The most reasonable explanation given to me was, that muscles try to
hold my stomach in the right position and stretch and press it a bit
to move the food. In case they get different commands from my eyes and
my sense of balance in the ear, they stretch and press the stomach
badly and move the food in the wrong direction. So the best thing is,
that both senses give the right prediction of the coming acceleration.
Second best is to switch of one of the senses, so usually close the
eyes. If you are used to, like seamen, you may be able to just have
the belly relaxed and dont care.

Additional it is helpful not to eat much but a few simple cookies and
lots of fresh air. So open platforms would be helpful on
tilting-trains.  ;-)
Maybe some monitors feed by a camera in the front of the train and an
artificial horizon could be helpful for those riding in the forward
seats. The backward seats may be taken less sensual riders like me,
that are only surprised, how the lakes surfaces keeps calm with a
gradient of some 5.

There are also Wikipedia articles in English and German existing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seekrankheit

The German article mentions an other reason than the one I gave: It
says, that poisoned food often disturbs the sense of balance. So there
was an evolutionary feature created to get rid of the poisoned food.


Gru, Mathias Blckow

Ross wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:16:51 +0100, Henry Law wrote in
> <TwLEe.6763$CF.47606@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, seen in uk.railway:
> 
> [...]
>>I've given up using trains locally. 
> 
> Does that mean you'll also give up posting complaints about the trains
> you don't use?


Yes.

Henry Law

Chris Tolley wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:14:24 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>Chris Tolley wrote:
>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>>>Criticism has been stifled.
>>>Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.
>>Sorry, Virgin's trains are the most wonderful in the world.
> 
> See, *that's* your problem, Henry. When someone disagrees with you, you
> just write something daft. That's one of the main reasons I am not
> convinced by what you write. That and the fact that it is often at
> variance with my own personal experience. How much personal experience
> do you actually have of Pendolinos?


Once. Was enough. Cramped, claustrophobic. Pokey little windows.
Uncomfortable seats. Carriage stank of piddle. I have walked past them
on platform at Euston, smell of sewage. Went to Nuneaton, came back from
Leamington to Paddington on a 165. Noisy but at least there was fresh air.

Henry Law

MIG wrote:

>> wrote:
>>>One of the neat design touches I like about the Pendolino is the way
>>>the window sill forms a convenient armrest without having something
>>>sticking out from the wall. A really elegant bit of ergonomics, I
>>>thought.
>>
>>I personally use the window sill as an armrest, but find the conduit
>>underneath (which is supposed to be used as one) slightly annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> Where I was sitting there was no window sill to lean on.  The ledge
> below the conduit dug into me if I put my arm straight down.  If I
> tried to put my elbow on the ledge, there was nowhere for my shoulder
> to go, because the conduit is only about three inches high, and above
> it there is the ludicrously thick wall sloping sharply inwards.
> Perhaps if there had been a window at that point it would have been
> different, but a large proportion of passengers won't have that luxury.
> 
> I had to put my arm in my lap and sit with my shoulders twisted all the
> way to jam them between the unnecessarily thick, sloping wall and the
> adjacent passenger, ending up rather stiff.  I am not particularly
> broad.
> 


You must be another miserable grumbler. You have imagined all that.
Pendolinos are wonderful, and the sky is darkening as a flock of pigs is
coming over.

Henry Law

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:32:49 +0100, Henry Law wrote in
<m3pFe.6836$CF.47661@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:16:51 +0100, Henry Law wrote in
> > <TwLEe.6763$CF.47606@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, seen in uk.railway:
> > 
> > [...]
> >>I've given up using trains locally. 
> > 
> > Does that mean you'll also give up posting complaints about the trains
> > you don't use?
> 
> Yes.


Wow. I'm impressed. 

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:14:24 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>>Chris Tolley wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:43:29 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>>>>Criticism has been stifled.
>>>>Nonsense. It has just been unconvincing.
>>>Sorry, Virgin's trains are the most wonderful in the world.
>> How much personal experience do you actually have of Pendolinos?
> Once.  Was enough.


Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309770.html
(37 059 and 37 611 at Dunston, 17 Mar 2005)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:la4dzpq6cuhd.2ehd8o1wa7cx$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>> Once.  Was enough.

> Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.


So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you travel 
a second time?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:53 +0100, David Splett wrote:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>> Once.  Was enough.
> 
>> Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.
> 
> So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you travel 
> a second time?


Not necessarily, but when there is a fleet of more than 50 trainsets, it
is rather hard to argue that comments based on having been in one of
them are reasoned criticism rather than prejudice. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309745.html
(43 070 at Peterborough, 3 Sep 1979)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:1jb4tk6m7rdg2$.6c8usnqtsvsv$.dlg@40tude.net...

> Not necessarily, but when there is a fleet of more than 50 trainsets, it
> is rather hard to argue that comments based on having been in one of
> them are reasoned criticism rather than prejudice.


I disagree. Most of Henry's problems revolve around the design - a cramped 
and claustrophobic atmosphere, uncomfortable seating and small windows - 
IMHO very valid observations, and pertinent to the whole fleet.

In article <dc5qhg$khd$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
David Splett  wrote:

>"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
>news:la4dzpq6cuhd.2ehd8o1wa7cx$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>> Once.  Was enough.
>
>> Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.
>
>So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you travel 
>a second time?


Two, actually. They're called "reflection" and "thought".

(you might want to try them sometime)

Example: I've travelled on 158s pretty regularly for - oh, 
13-odd years at the least. The first time I wasn't sure I liked
it at all (different from what I was used to[1], a/c was noisy).
In a few months I developed a deep respect for their in-depth
quality (that ride!) which has never really gone away, in 
spite of the best efforts of CT a few years back.

[1] 155s.

-- 
Andy Breen ~	"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
  		 and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:05:53 +0100, David Splett wrote in
<dc5qhg$khd$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
> news:la4dzpq6cuhd.2ehd8o1wa7cx$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
> >> Once.  Was enough.
> 
> > Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.
> 
> So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you travel 
> a second time?

 
I think you tend to notice more as you use something more. 

So, I've never commented on Pendolini because I've only ever traveled
on one; I've never really commented on TGVs because I've only ever
travelled on one (a PSE set), and so on. 

First impressions do count, but they can also mislead. As a passenger
I disliked CT 170s when I first used the, but they grew on me as I
travelled on them more and noticed the better things, things I hadn't
noticed at first because I was concentrating on the negatives. Ditto
as a driver, although they've grown on me nowhere near as much in that
respect.

I think a balanced view is impossible based on one experience,
although constructive criticism is certainly possible.
-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:36:03 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>First impressions do count, but they can also mislead. As a passenger
>I disliked CT 170s when I first used the, but they grew on me as I
>travelled on them more and noticed the better things, things I hadn't
>noticed at first because I was concentrating on the negatives.


The way MML talked them up as IC trains at first, together with the
fact that they were (I think) the first post-privatisation new trains,
didn't help.

Had they been purchased as a replacement for 142s or 150s, even with
the MML tight seat spacing, I think people would have enthused rather
more about them!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

David Splett wrote:


> So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you 
> travel a second time?


Anyone can have a one-off bad experience of a train. Your perception
of it might be coloured by the fact that you were just having a bad
day already. There might have been problems that affected just that
one service. It isn't fair to judge an entire fleet on the basis of
one journey.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:19:02 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>Anyone can have a one-off bad experience of a train. Your perception
>of it might be coloured by the fact that you were just having a bad
>day already. There might have been problems that affected just that
>one service. It isn't fair to judge an entire fleet on the basis of
>one journey.


Especially, in the Pendolino's case, if you felt ill and were sitting
in the leading vehicle.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article <dc5qhg$khd$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> David Splett  wrote:
>>"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
>>news:la4dzpq6cuhd.2ehd8o1wa7cx$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:35:07 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>>>Once.  Was enough.
>>>Well, at least we have a measure of how informed your criticism is.
>>So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you travel 
>>a second time?
> 
> Two, actually. They're called "reflection" and "thought".
> 
> (you might want to try them sometime)
> 
> Example: I've travelled on 158s pretty regularly for - oh, 
> 13-odd years at the least. The first time I wasn't sure I liked
> it at all (different from what I was used to[1], a/c was noisy).
> In a few months I developed a deep respect for their in-depth
> quality (that ride!) which has never really gone away, in 
> spite of the best efforts of CT a few years back.
> 
> [1] 155s.
> 


I was quite impressed by the 158s the first time I went on them, only
things wrong are the tight seat pitch which can make them cramped when
crowded, and the dodgy air con.

Henry Law

Stevie D wrote:

> David Splett wrote:
> 
>>So is there some magical process which somehow makes it better if you 
>>travel a second time?
> 
> Anyone can have a one-off bad experience of a train. Your perception
> of it might be coloured by the fact that you were just having a bad
> day already. There might have been problems that affected just that
> one service. It isn't fair to judge an entire fleet on the basis of
> one journey.
> 


My day up to then had been outstanding. Could not have been better, in
fact. It was the day of the transit of Venus and I had enjoyed an
excellent view, following a swim in a warm calm sea at Brighton.

Repeated journeys don't make a cramped space or pokey windows larger.

Henry Law

> My hypothesis is that it depends on the tracks what happens. for the 
> sickness syndrome there is an upper and lower frequency but the spectrum 
> is rather wide. Do we have to rebuild the tracks because of their 
> geometry? Or will it be sufficient to remove part of the spectrum in the 
> vehicle movements? There should be some research on the isssue...


My Phd thesis reviewed various studies of travel sickness, ride quality 
etc. on trains.  It's available at www.demandanalysis.co.uk if you find 
it interesting.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:03:33 +0100, Henry Law wrote:

> My day up to then could not have been better, following a swim in a
> warm calm sea at Brighton. Repeated journeys don't make a cramped
> space or pokey windows larger.

Having seen your picture, Henry, I know for a fact that you are a lot
smaller than I am (as are most). You presumably notice "cramped" in
relation to the walls of the carriage and your perception of the
ambience. I notice it in relation to the contact between my body and the
seat. Yours is an intellectual assessment, mine is a physical one. 

The one area in which I would expect to be able to compare your comments
directly against my experiences is in relation to the "whiff". In my
various encounters with Pendolinos, either as a passenger or a
bystander, I have yet to detect anything. And this seems all the more
remarkable in light of your comment above and the remembered sig below.
--
Brighton: one can't swim in the sea; but one can go through the motions.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:10:52 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:36:03 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >First impressions do count, but they can also mislead. As a passenger
> >I disliked CT 170s when I first used the, but they grew on me as I
> >travelled on them more and noticed the better things, things I hadn't
> >noticed at first because I was concentrating on the negatives.
> 
> The way MML talked them up as IC trains at first, together with the
> fact that they were (I think) the first post-privatisation new trains,
> didn't help.


Um. MML's (admittedly silly) statements weren't relevant to CT's 170s,
which are the ones I specifically referred to. :)

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

Chris Tolley wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:03:33 +0100, Henry Law wrote:
>>My day up to then could not have been better, following a swim in a
>>warm calm sea at Brighton. Repeated journeys don't make a cramped
>>space or pokey windows larger.
> Having seen your picture, Henry, I know for a fact that you are a lot
> smaller than I am (as are most). You presumably notice "cramped" in
> relation to the walls of the carriage and your perception of the
> ambience. I notice it in relation to the contact between my body and the
> seat. Yours is an intellectual assessment, mine is a physical one. 


So are perceptions not valid if they cannot be measured? Besides which
Pendolinos are actually narrower than non-tilt profiles. What about the
seats where there is no visibility out of the train? And you  do not
need to be 6ft 4in to need a decent amount of legroom. Can I take it you
would not mind living like a troglodyte in an underground vault provided
it was large enough?


> 
> The one area in which I would expect to be able to compare your comments
> directly against my experiences is in relation to the "whiff". In my
> various encounters with Pendolinos, either as a passenger or a
> bystander, I have yet to detect anything. And this seems all the more
> remarkable in light of your comment above and the remembered sig below.



I complained  about the pong to Virgin and they apologised and admitted
there was a problem.

Henry Law

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:13:49 +0100, Henry Law wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> Yours is an intellectual assessment, mine is a physical one. 
> So are perceptions not valid if they cannot be measured? 

I'm just observing that when you complain that something is cramped,
(which a dictionary defines as "not having enough space") your
definition of enough space appears to relate to swinging a cat, whereas
mine relates to fitting in a seat.


> What about the seats where there is no visibility out of the train?

I don't recall any of them in a Pendolino. Some have restricted views.


> Can I take it you would not mind living like a troglodyte?

It honestly isn't an aspiration of mine.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632963.html
(43 107 waiting under Barlow's trainshed at London St Pancras, Aug 1983)

"Tony Miles"  wrote in message
news:dbvtga$4iq$1$8302bc10@news.beeb.net...

>
> "naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message
> news:1122156594.787229.142520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I agree the interiors are a bit cramped but I can put up with that.
> >
> > My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
> > that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
> > completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
> > to happen on the new trains.
> >
> Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite relaxing, in fact on a 221
this
> week I found it quite boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt
rather
> than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.
>

Is 2 degrees the maximum difference between track super-elevation and train
tilt, or are there places where more compensation is needed?

Geoff

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:39:24 UTC, "Geoffrey Mortimer" 
wrote:

: 
: "Tony Miles"  wrote in message
: news:dbvtga$4iq$1$8302bc10@news.beeb.net...

: > Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite relaxing, in fact on a 221
: this
: > week I found it quite boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt
: rather
: > than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.
: >
: Is 2 degrees the maximum difference between track super-elevation and train
: tilt, or are there places where more compensation is needed?

Eh? 6 degrees (Super Voyager) and 8 degrees (Pendolino) /as well as/ 
superelevation, surely?

Ian

Geoffrey Mortimer wrote:

> "Tony Miles"  wrote in message
> news:dbvtga$4iq$1$8302bc10@news.beeb.net...
> >
> > "naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message
> > news:1122156594.787229.142520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > I agree the interiors are a bit cramped but I can put up with that.
> > >
> > > My main grumble is the tilting mechanism making me feel ill.  I read
> > > that the APT caused passengers to feel queasy because the tilt
> > > completely compensated for the lateral G force and this wasn't supposed
> > > to happen on the new trains.
> > >
> > Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite relaxing, in fact on a 221
> this
> > week I found it quite boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt
> rather
> > than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.
> >
> Is 2 degrees the maximum difference between track super-elevation and train
> tilt, or are there places where more compensation is needed?
>
> Geoff



Having started this with my rant, I should add that I felt no ill
effects from tilt and was hardly aware of it at all (not being able to
see out of course).  I wasn't in the front.  I've never been in a APT.
Don't think I've been in a 221 with the tilt on.

Ian Johnston (ian.groups@btinternet.com) said:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:39:24 UTC, "Geoffrey Mortimer"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tony Miles"  wrote in message
> > news:dbvtga$4iq$1$8302bc10@news.beeb.net...
>
> > > Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite
> > > relaxing, in fact on a 221 this week I found it quite
> > > boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt
> > > rather than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.
> > >
> > Is 2 degrees the maximum difference between track
> > super-elevation and train tilt, or are there places
> > where more compensation is needed?
>
> Eh? 6 degrees (Super Voyager) and 8 degrees (Pendolino)
> /as well as/ superelevation, surely?
>


Aye.

-- 
Andrew

Chris Tolley wrote:

> 
> > What about the seats where there is no visibility out of the train?
> I don't recall any of them in a Pendolino. Some have restricted views.


I regret to say that such seats do exist, as I discovered recently. The
only view available to me was through a window on the opposite side of
the coach.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:57:36 +0100, John Ray wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>>> What about the seats where there is no visibility out of the train?
>> I don't recall any of them in a Pendolino. Some have restricted views.

> I regret to say that such seats do exist, as I discovered recently.
> The only view available to me was through a window on the opposite
> side of the coach.


Indeed. That's what I called a restricted view in the previous posting.
The only trains I have ever travelled on where there has been no
opportunity to see what has been going on outside are single-glazed
Mk1's steamed up in winter.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857151.html
(50 010 at Leamington Spa, Oct 1987)

In message , Chris Tolley 
 writes

>The only trains I have ever travelled on where there has been no 
>opportunity to see what has been going on outside are single-glazed 
>Mk1's steamed up in winter.


Luxury!  I remember having to scrape a hole in the ice to see the 
station names on the Cotswold line.
-- 
Goalie of the Century

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:13:10 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Indeed. That's what I called a restricted view in the previous posting.
>The only trains I have ever travelled on where there has been no
>opportunity to see what has been going on outside are single-glazed
>Mk1's steamed up in winter.


Quite.  That experience is, of course, still available care of most
bus companies[1], who are too cheap to specify double-glazing.

[1] First have at least some double-glazed buses in Manchester, and
what a difference it makes.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Chris Tolley wrote:

> 
> Indeed. That's what I called a restricted view in the previous posting.


Ah, now I understand what you meant. For my money, it's much the same as
having no view at all.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:143x0ngaqedzo.5dvgfvpdiibx.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:57:36 +0100, John Ray wrote:
>> Chris Tolley wrote:
>>>> What about the seats where there is no visibility out of the train?
>>> I don't recall any of them in a Pendolino. Some have restricted views.
>
>> I regret to say that such seats do exist, as I discovered recently.
>> The only view available to me was through a window on the opposite
>> side of the coach.
>
> Indeed. That's what I called a restricted view in the previous posting.
> The only trains I have ever travelled on where there has been no
> opportunity to see what has been going on outside are single-glazed
> Mk1's steamed up in winter.


        There was a "Disco Coach" in the League Liner set. This had no 
windows very little lighting except for the coloured Disco lights, no seats 
and two Cassette Decks for the music used by Football Clubs in the early 
1970's The set had other coaches with TV's for showing Football Videos. I 
travelled on it to Cardiff and to Portsmouth from Bolton in 1973.
        I have tried to find info on this train without success, can anyone 
help?

KW

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:47:34 GMT, Ken Ward wrote:


>         There was a "Disco Coach" in the League Liner set. This had no 
> windows very little lighting except for the coloured Disco lights, no seats 
> and two Cassette Decks for the music used by Football Clubs in the early 
> 1970's The set had other coaches with TV's for showing Football Videos. I 
> travelled on it to Cardiff and to Portsmouth from Bolton in 1973.
>         I have tried to find info on this train without success, can anyone 
> help?


This reminds me of the cinema coach that went around the country during
the 1825/1975 celebrations.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633081.html
(50 035 at Salisbury, 15 May 1985)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:34:45 GMT, Rich Mackin 
 wrote:

> >
> > <http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
> 
>  It's him alright :(
> 
>  "I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is not 
>  artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
>  locally, to get them changed."


Not artistic or accurate judging from that Pendolino picture he posted - while
I do think the no-window seats are horrible his "Not much legroom here"
caption is nonsense - you can clearly see it's got plenty (all Pendolino
seats I've sat in have had, and some have had too much) 


>  Which explains:
> 
>  http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/


There's some pretty odd views in some of these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/17264267/in/set-411029/

So the "please don't decapitate yourself" window bars bolted on CIGs and
VEPs were actually handy handholds, and not grime encrusted obstacles to
opening the door?  Tosh.

-- 
| Mark Hynes              mmh@plig.net | 
| "What are you trying to incinerate?" |

"Mark Hynes"  wrote

>
> So the "please don't decapitate yourself" window bars bolted on CIGs and
> VEPs were actually handy handholds, and not grime encrusted obstacles to
> opening the door?  Tosh.
>

EPBs managed without windowbars (until a few 2EPBs were transferred to the
North London Line), making do with a sign
'Caution. Do not lean out of the window'
which was usually unofficially amended to
'Caution. Do not clean soot off the window'.

Peter

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:41:39 UTC, Mark Hynes  wrote:

: There's some pretty odd views in some of these:
:  
: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/17264267/in/set-411029/
:  
: So the "please don't decapitate yourself" window bars bolted on CIGs and
: VEPs were actually handy handholds, and not grime encrusted obstacles to
: opening the door?  Tosh.

How on earth are you supposed to use them as handholds when the door 
is open? And for what purpose? I've got on and off a lot of trains in 
my time, and I can't say I have ever felt the need to grab on to the 
outside of an open slam door.

Ian


--

Ken Ward wrote:


>         There was a "Disco Coach" in the League Liner set. This had no
> windows very little lighting except for the coloured Disco lights, no seats
> and two Cassette Decks for the music used by Football Clubs in the early
> 1970's The set had other coaches with TV's for showing Football Videos. I
> travelled on it to Cardiff and to Portsmouth from Bolton in 1973.
>         I have tried to find info on this train without success, can anyone
> help?


The set was always stabled at Blackpool North carriage sidings.  IRC
the train was mostly FOs.  The disco coach was branded the 'Kick-Off
Disco', the name deriving from a Granada TV sports programme of the
time.

The vehicle had all windows blanked out, and the 'Kick-Off' branding
was done in very 1970s 'balloon' style lettering. Livery was standard
blue/grey.  The disco coach was classified as 'SD', I think, and
reference was made to it in the monthly operating notices for some
time.  Requirements were to keep the vehicle locked when not in use.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>EPBs managed without windowbars (until a few 2EPBs were transferred to the
>North London Line), making do with a sign
>'Caution. Do not lean out of the window'
>which was usually unofficially amended to
>'Caution. Do not clean soot off the window'.


Reminds me of the Merseyrail sticker that used to be found in every
bay:-

"Please mind your head"

which was usually amended to something like...

"Fleas in your head"

As to the bars, they only appeared circa 2002, and are grossly
annoying.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
>  wrote:
>
> >EPBs managed without windowbars (until a few 2EPBs were transferred to the
> >North London Line), making do with a sign
> >'Caution. Do not lean out of the window'
> >which was usually unofficially amended to
> >'Caution. Do not clean soot off the window'.
>
> Reminds me of the Merseyrail sticker that used to be found in every
> bay:-
>
> "Please mind your head"
>
> which was usually amended to something like...
>
> "Fleas in your head"
>
> As to the bars, they only appeared circa 2002, and are grossly
> annoying.
>
> Neil




The bars on 2EPBs still confuse me a bit with regard to exact
chronology.  When then went back to the southern, I thought that they
had just retained the bars from the NLL, but around then anything
likely to go to Oxted was having bars fitted anyway.  Was there a
period between these two requirements when they were just a relic?

The signs on the Underground doors have changed over the years.  They
used to say "Obstructing the doors causes delay and can be dangerous"
which could be amended by deletion alone to "Obstruct the doors cause
delay and be dangerous".

Then it gradually got more direct, with "Obstructing the doors can be
dangerous".

Then "Do not obstruct the doors".

Now I think it's "Get out the way".

Neil Williams wrote:


> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>EPBs managed without windowbars (until a few 2EPBs were transferred to the
>>North London Line), making do with a sign
>>'Caution. Do not lean out of the window'
>>which was usually unofficially amended to
>>'Caution. Do not clean soot off the window'.
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the Merseyrail sticker that used to be found in every
> bay:-
> 
> "Please mind your head"
> 
> which was usually amended to something like...
> 
> "Fleas in your head"
> 
> As to the bars, they only appeared circa 2002, and are grossly
> annoying.
> 
> Neil
> 


like the "obstructing the doors causes delay and can be dangerous" got 
changed to "...causes delay and can anger us"

On 30 Jul 2005 15:09:44 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>Now I think it's "Get out the way".


On the Victoria Line today I noted that new stickers have appeared on
the glass panels to the side of the doors explaining, in a fairly
verbose manner, that you can damage the train by trying to hold doors
open.

What goes around...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 30 Jul 2005 15:09:44 -0700, MIG wrote:


> The signs on the Underground doors have changed over the years.  They
> used to say "Obstructing the doors causes delay and can be dangerous"


Presumably the North Kent Networker version of this was "Obstruct... the
doors ..use. ...a. ... can .. ........."

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15053473.html
(170 509 at Stafford, 28 Apr 2001)

Mark Hynes wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:34:45 GMT, Rich Mackin 
>  wrote:
>>><http://www.flickr.com/people/seadipper/>
>> It's him alright :(
>>
>> "I like to use photography as a means of protest so a lot of my stuff is not 
>> artistic but is intended as a means of stirring things up, especially 
>> locally, to get them changed."
> 
> Not artistic or accurate judging from that Pendolino picture he posted - while
> I do think the no-window seats are horrible his "Not much legroom here"
> caption is nonsense - you can clearly see it's got plenty (all Pendolino
> seats I've sat in have had, and some have had too much) 
> 
>> Which explains:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/14787153/in/set-348572/
> 
> There's some pretty odd views in some of these:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/17264267/in/set-411029/
> 
> So the "please don't decapitate yourself" window bars bolted on CIGs and
> VEPs were actually handy handholds, and not grime encrusted obstacles to
> opening the door?  Tosh.
> 


Not the window bars, the top of the lowered droplight and the recess at
the bottom of the window. The window bars were a late addition and a
nuisance on CIGs which had no internal handles. Anyway, it it too late
to take pics now but at least 30% used the open door for support over
the gap between platform and train, and new stock doesn't even have
external grabrails.

Henry Law

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:41:39 UTC, Mark Hynes  wrote:
> 
> : There's some pretty odd views in some of these:
> :  
> : http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/17264267/in/set-411029/
> :  
> : So the "please don't decapitate yourself" window bars bolted on CIGs and
> : VEPs were actually handy handholds, and not grime encrusted obstacles to
> : opening the door?  Tosh.
> 
> How on earth are you supposed to use them as handholds when the door 
> is open? And for what purpose? I've got on and off a lot of trains in 
> my time, and I can't say I have ever felt the need to grab on to the 
> outside of an open slam door.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 


You are supposed to be an engineer. Think about it. Door is open. Inside
of door is on your left if you are getting on the train. You can hold on
to the top of the lowered droplight or recess at the bottom of the
window - there is an upstand provided for the purpose of pulling the
door shut when you are inside the train. Lots of people used the door
for support over the gap when boarding a slam door train, especially if
there the platform was low or on a curve. New trains don't even have
external handholds, which is fine only if the platform is straight and
level with the step board.

Henry Law

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:09:22 UTC, Henry Law 
 wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:

: > How on earth are you supposed to use them as handholds when the door 
: > is open? And for what purpose? I've got on and off a lot of trains in 
: > my time, and I can't say I have ever felt the need to grab on to the 
: > outside of an open slam door.

: You are supposed to be an engineer. Think about it. Door is open. Inside
: of door is on your left if you are getting on the train. You can hold on
: to the top of the lowered droplight or recess at the bottom of the
: window...

On your photograph it is the bars over the droplight, on the outside, 
which are labelled as useful handholds. How the hell do you use them? 
Do you reach through the open window or round the edge of the door?

Ian

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:36:02 UTC, Henry Law 
 wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:

: > On your photograph it is the bars over the droplight, on the outside, 
: > which are labelled as useful handholds. How the hell do you use them? 
: > Do you reach through the open window or round the edge of the door?

: The door is open. They are on the left if you are boarding the train, on
: the right when getting off. 

But they are on the OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR when it's open. Do (did)  
you really use a handhold on the outside of an door when you 
board(ed)?

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:36:02 UTC, Henry Law 
>  wrote:
> 
> : Ian Johnston wrote:
> 
> : > On your photograph it is the bars over the droplight, on the outside, 
> : > which are labelled as useful handholds. How the hell do you use them? 
> : > Do you reach through the open window or round the edge of the door?
> 
> : The door is open. They are on the left if you are boarding the train, on
> : the right when getting off. 
> 
> But they are on the OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR when it's open. Do (did)  
> you really use a handhold on the outside of an door when you 
> board(ed)?
> 
> Ian


I have relabelled as it obviously confused you. Sounds as if you have
never used these trains. When boarding, you have the fixed external
handle on your right - the chromium plated one - and the top of the
droplight of the open door on your left. When alighting you have the top
of the droplight of the open door on your right. On the both sides,
internally, are raised finger guards, shaped aluminium extrusions,
running all the way down the side of the door jamb on the inside - in
effect a pair of continuous handrails. Is that clear?

Henry Law

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-dtoFXgRxfgvT@localhost...

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:39:24 UTC, "Geoffrey Mortimer" 
> wrote:
>
> :
> : "Tony Miles"  wrote in message
> : news:dbvtga$4iq$1$8302bc10@news.beeb.net...
>
> : > Its never made me feel ill - I find it quite relaxing, in fact on a
221
> : this
> : > week I found it quite boring to be only getting the 6 degrees of tilt
> : rather
> : > than the full 8 degrees of a Pendolino.
> : >
> : Is 2 degrees the maximum difference between track super-elevation and
train
> : tilt, or are there places where more compensation is needed?
>
> Eh? 6 degrees (Super Voyager) and 8 degrees (Pendolino) /as well as/
> superelevation, surely?
>
> Ian


Oh, I see (I'll get me coat ... )

Cheers
Geoff