I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.

Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
you can't actually see over them. I think if given the choice between a
seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:25:48 UTC, "GreatWesternSean" 
 wrote:

:  think if given the choice between a
: seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.

Even at night?

Ian

"GreatWesternSean"  wrote in message 
news:1125354348.051034.254060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
> which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
> refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
> 314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.
>
> Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
> views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
> you can't actually see over them. I think if given the choice between a
> seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.
>


I don't normally get involved with debates on rolling stock, but what the 
hell! I've just had yet another journey on MML Meridians where it is play 
musical chairs. In 1st if two passengers want to sit opposite, one has no 
window view. So you move from seat to seat to stay together, but where both 
can relax and enjoy the view. Can't be done alas on a Meridian I think.

I could rant about Pendolinos for hours, but life is too short.

David

GreatWesternSean wrote:


> Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
> views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
> you can't actually see over them.


At least Voyagers have reasonably high windows. Yes, the seat backs are
high, but I can just about see over them and still see something of a
view through the windows. There doesn't seem to be any view out of a
Pendolino, where the seat backs are equally high but the windows are
much shorter.

I think I shall start referring to these peculiar trains as
Paddedcellinos.

Those Adelantes on FGW seem pretty decent though. I've not made many
journeys on them but I have been quietly impressed so far.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

Anything when passing through Tees-side?!?!  ;-)

-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

"GreatWesternSean"  wrote in message
news:1125354348.051034.254060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
> which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
> refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
> 314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.


The only seats in the Chiltern 165s that have no windows are in the former
first class sections. The two-car units have four such seats, two per side,
whilst the three car units have the same arrangement plus another two pairs
in the same vehicle, further back. All of the affected seats are in the DMS
vehicle with the lavatory and occur where there was previously a luggage
stack in the first class area. I understand that cost of cutting and glazing
a window aperture was not justified in the recent refurbishment programme.
It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!

>
> Those Adelantes on FGW seem pretty decent though. I've not made many
> journeys on them but I have been quietly impressed so far.
> --
>



Adelante's are fantastic, i've used them a few times now and can
definitely say for sure they are the best DMU's in britain.
Comfortable, fast, normally very quiet and spacious. There are a few
adelantes that rattle, but they seem to be in the minority in my
experience.

On 29 Aug 2005 17:01:40 -0700, "GreatWesternSean"
 wrote:


>Adelante's are fantastic


I want to be able to say that, but the seats are too loosely mounted
(so they move side to side) and the ride is utterly atrocious.
Because of that, they are the only train that makes me travel-sick,
bar sitting up front in a Pendolino with tilt on.

Mine's a Voyager, I think.  There aren't that many seats without
windows, and those that do have them have lovely big ones, and the
ride is superb, rivalling the 158, the previous benchmark for such
things.

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, 29 Aug 2005 23:59:28 GMT, "Jack Taylor" 
wrote:


>It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!


To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that
a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
world...

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.

In message , at 07:03:46 on Tue, 30 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!
>
>To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that
>a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
>world...


Perhaps, but something like half of Virgin (XC) passengers (when 
surveyed a year or so ago) made one or two trips with them a year. I'm 
sure the same will be true of most long distance trips.
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:
  > To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that

> a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
> world...


And this time of the year in the evening where the sun is way too low 
and you are blinded wherever you sit, those seats with no windows are 
quite useful.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:36:28 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 07:03:46 on Tue, 30 Aug 
>2005, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>>It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!
>>
>>To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that
>>a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
>>world...
>
>Perhaps, but something like half of Virgin (XC) passengers (when 
>surveyed a year or so ago) made one or two trips with them a year. I'm 
>sure the same will be true of most long distance trips.


Perhaps it was the same survey that noted that few passengers look out
of the window anyway!  Far too busy with games, laptops, chatter,
crosswords, books, etc; etc:
Me?  I look out most of the time although darkness in the wilds of
open country is pretty dull.  Can't say the same about the urban
nighttime scene. 

Guy Gorton

In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-En6zGvUldo7g@localhost>,
Ian Johnston  wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:25:48 UTC, "GreatWesternSean" 
> wrote:
>
>:  think if given the choice between a
>: seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.
>
>Even at night?


And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In message , at 10:33:33 on 
Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Guy Gorton  
remarked:

>Perhaps it was the same survey that noted that few passengers look out
>of the window anyway!  Far too busy with games, laptops, chatter,
>crosswords, books, etc; etc:


I'm wondering how many use the view out of the window to orientate 
themselves with stations. Do they entirely rely upon the announcements, 
or does it help to be able to see out?
-- 
Roland Perry

GreatWesternSean wrote:

> I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
> which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
> refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
> 314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.
>
> Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
> views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
> you can't actually see over them. I think if given the choice between a
> seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.



The mark III based units (455, 456, 317 to 322) are not as bad as the
313s, but they can be pretty bad.  For a couple of examples from a 321,
see here http://www.trainstuff.org.uk/windows.

I agree that designing trains without proper windows views is a
disgraceful way to treat the travelling public.  In Pendolinos,
passengers are denied a view just for the sake of designing a train
that looks like an aeroplane; hardly the model of comfort.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 10:33:33 on
> Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Guy Gorton 
> remarked:
> >Perhaps it was the same survey that noted that few passengers look out
> >of the window anyway!  Far too busy with games, laptops, chatter,
> >crosswords, books, etc; etc:
>
> I'm wondering how many use the view out of the window to orientate
> themselves with stations. Do they entirely rely upon the announcements,
> or does it help to be able to see out?



313s generally run on routes where there are many similar stations in
quick succession and no announcements, and it is indeed difficult to
know where one is from many of the seats.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Roland Perry wrote:


> I'm wondering how many use the view out of the window to orientate 
> themselves with stations. Do they entirely rely upon the 
> announcements, or does it help to be able to see out?


My most recent problem with that *would* have been when Longport was 
wrongly announced as Longton (the latter being the station I wanted).  
However, I knew we hadn't got to Stoke yet, so, looking out of the 
window was only a confirmation of what I'd already deduced.

(Pity about Etruria, though...)

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote

>
> And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
> mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
> solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
> arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
>

That sounds like a 4VEP. Three decent seats per 4 car unit in the
mini-saloon carved out of the luggage van.

Peter

azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


>And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
>arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(



Eh?  What are you on about?

The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows, as did at
least the early Mk IIs.

In message , at 
12:56:44 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:


>Pity about Etruria, though...


I've only ever been to Etruria on a canal boat. Not one of these 
new-fangled railway trains.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:56:44 UTC, "Alan J. Flavell" 
 wrote:

: (Pity about Etruria, though...)

That whole area is a regrettable occurrence. Open cast coal mining or 
thermonuclear detonation are probably the only solutions with a chance
of success. See "Sunderland".

Ian

The message 
from Tony   Polson  contains these words:


> >And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
> >mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
> >solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
> >arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(


> Eh?  What are you on about?

> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows, as did at
> least the early Mk IIs.


Correct.  
However, in many minds the units which ran services south of London
*are* Mk.1 coaches.  Those of us in the rest of the country know the
Mk.1 as a part of express long-distance services, not some pootling
little all-lamp-post-stopping service.  <g>   I remember sprawling out
in a compartment of a Mk.1 coach on the Llangollen Railway and being
asked by a very south-country voice (I don't think "Estuary English" had
been thought of then) if the train was *all* first class, or was there a
coach for ordinary people.  I put him out of his misery, but for the
whole trip he kept his children on their best behaviour because they
were in the posh coach.  I felt quite sorry for them.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

Anything going through Salford
"GreatWesternSean"  wrote in message 
news:1125354348.051034.254060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
> which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
> refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
> 314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.
>
> Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
> views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
> you can't actually see over them. I think if given the choice between a
> seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.
> 

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message 
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-yV6dMvixJuIM@localhost...

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:56:44 UTC, "Alan J. Flavell"
>  wrote:
>
> : (Pity about Etruria, though...)
>
> That whole area is a regrettable occurrence. Open cast coal mining or
> thermonuclear detonation are probably the only solutions with a chance
> of success. See "Sunderland".
>
> Ian

Perhaps the fault line that runs along the bed of the valley will open up 
and swallow the entire area....
My wife used to say that earthquakes in that area were due to the 
inhabitants of Newcastle under Lyme quaking with horror at the idea of being 
included in the Potteries.
Brian

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:


> : (Pity about Etruria, though...)
> 
> That whole area is a regrettable occurrence. Open cast coal mining 
> or thermonuclear detonation are probably the only solutions with a 
> chance of success. See "Sunderland".


Oh, c'mon - although I personally have no reason to defend the 
Potteries (being from the Black Country myself), I think it's fair
to note that it's well placed for getting out into attractive 
countryside.  So is Glasgow, for that matter ;-)

And within reach of a fair bit of railway interest (on-topic!).

And one nephew, who worked out he would never afford to buy a suitable 
family home in Brighton[1] where he was working at the time, moved to 
the Potteries by buying a splendid detached property at a most 
attractive price.  Hasn't regretted it for a moment, I gather.

ttfn

[1] Not Hove, actually.  Well, it was Patcham, actually.

Tony Polson wrote:


> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows


Au contraire. Some had a whole corridor between them and the nearest
window, and had a rather restricted view out.

And then, of course there were plenty of Mk 1's that didn't have any
seats at all. ;-)

Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
yourself. 

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632767.html
(13 003 at Tinsley, 3 Apr 1980)

Peter Masson wrote:

> "Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote
> >
> > And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
> > mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
> > solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
> > arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
> >
> That sounds like a 4VEP. Three decent seats per 4 car unit in the
> mini-saloon carved out of the luggage van.
>
> Peter



The VEPs and suburban mark Is had a doorway in each bay, which meant
that the door frame obstructed the view slightly.  However, all the
seats were aligned with windows in that the spacing matched the window
spacing, unlike the Mark III, 313 etc onwards, where the windows and
seating plans are devised without reference to each other.

This door frame was nothing like the obstruction presented by the solid
walls of 313s, Pendolinos etc.  I am particularly bothered by lack of
window view, but the suburban Mark Is didn't particularly bother me.

On 29 Aug 2005 15:25:48 -0700, "GreatWesternSean"
 wrote:


>I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
>which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
>refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
>314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.


I always seem to get a "window" seat with no window on Eurostar.  
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

On 30 Aug 2005 03:09:41 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>313s generally run on routes where there are many similar stations in
>quick succession and no announcements, and it is indeed difficult to
>know where one is from many of the seats.


But also on the kind of route where most passengers are regulars and
so would know their stop anyway...

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.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Andrew
Robert Breen  gently breathed:

>In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-En6zGvUldo7g@localhost>,
>Ian Johnston  wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:25:48 UTC, "GreatWesternSean"
>> wrote:

>>:  think if given the choice between a
>>: seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.

>>Even at night?

>And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>solid pillar?


Ok, this explains a thing or two.  Clearly what I think of as a Mk1
coach is a vastly different breed of beast to what you've experienced.

In the Mk1 as I know it, every seat has a view the windows were arranged
to match the seating bays.  Monstrosities like "airline" seats were
unheard of, seats always faced each other in groups of 2, 4 (or 6 or 8
in compartments).

Each bay had a window, and if the bay spacing varied (for example, a 1st
class coach would only have seven bays, while Standard class (then known
as 2nd or 3rd, depending on era)) would have eight bays.  The difference
was made by having wider pillars between the standard sized windows.
This did mean a slightly more restricted view if you sat right back in
your seat in 1st, but the gain was a level of luxury and comfort that is
utterly unimaginable in modern stock.

Granted, in high-density MU stock (and some of the original, long-gone
Mk1 suburban hauled stock), where there was a door to each bay, the view
wasn't exactly wonderful because of the door's pillars and frame, but
that sort of stock never worked the kind of routes that Voyagers and
their ilk operate now.

The abandonment of lining up seats and windows, which started with the
HST coaches (Mk3s), was the point at which the railway industry stopped
putting passenger comfort first.  The abandonment of forward view from
MU stock was another symptom of the same disease.


>Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
>arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(


I am left wondering just what kind of coach you have in mind, barring a
few experimental prototypes I can't remember ever seeing a coach with
100% mismatch - was it some kind of "emergency cobbled together from
spare parts" stock or something?

-- 
 - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk>    <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

DERWENT Re: Trains with bad window views
 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:08:03 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 


>
>"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote
>>
>> And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>> mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>> solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
>> arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
>>


No VEPs in .se, I think the CEP that went out that way has been
returned/scrapped now.


>That sounds like a 4VEP. Three decent seats per 4 car unit in the
>mini-saloon carved out of the luggage van.



There were quite a few VEPs and VOPs going around with the large CIG
style windows rather than the VEP style ones. I think the actual
appertures are the same size but not having the (non)opening top
lights somehow made the VEPs less claustrophobic.



PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-En6zGvUldo7g@localhost>,
> Ian Johnston  wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:25:48 UTC, "GreatWesternSean" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>:  think if given the choice between a
>>: seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.
>>
>>Even at night?
> 
> And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
> mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
> solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
> arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
> 


The VEP was a far from traditional mark 1 coach - they were a late build
aberration.

Henry Law

MIG wrote:

> GreatWesternSean wrote:
>>I understand some trains to have bad window views, but there are some
>>which have no window views at all on some seats. Some i can confirm are
>>refurbished Chiltern class 165's, class 313's (not sure about the
>>314/315's or the refurbs), class 390 Pendolinos, 220/1 Voyagers.
>>
>>Are there any more trains out there we should avoid with equally bad
>>views? I think voyagers wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't so tall
>>you can't actually see over them. I think if given the choice between a
>>seat without a window and no seat at all, i'd happily stand.
> 
> 
> The mark III based units (455, 456, 317 to 322) are not as bad as the
> 313s, but they can be pretty bad.  For a couple of examples from a 321,
> see here http://www.trainstuff.org.uk/windows.
> 
> I agree that designing trains without proper windows views is a
> disgraceful way to treat the travelling public.  In Pendolinos,
> passengers are denied a view just for the sake of designing a train
> that looks like an aeroplane; hardly the model of comfort.
> 


I am no fan of Pendolinos, but the tiny windows (they are smaller than
they look from the outside) are partly for structural reasons - there is
a substantial shock wave when two trains pass at the 140mph design
speed. Of course they do not travel at that speed and probably never will.

Henry Law

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message
news:df195n$l9p$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
> mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
> solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
> arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(


No, that's the seat back. You were facing the wrong way.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:09:45 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>I am no fan of Pendolinos, but the tiny windows (they are smaller than
>they look from the outside) are partly for structural reasons - there is
>a substantial shock wave when two trains pass at the 140mph design
>speed.


True.  Regular WCML travellers will recall the slight body deformation
(and almighty bang) that occurred when two Mk3 sets passed at speed.

That said, the shock wave is further reduced by the tilt profile which
means the coaches are not as close together as they pass.

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.

The refurb' 507 & 508's are pretty bad when it comes to getting a view out!

KW

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:39:38 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows
>
>Au contraire. Some had a whole corridor between them and the nearest
>window, and had a rather restricted view out.

Always found compartment stock a mixed blessing. Ideally you and
companions could occupy what became a semi private suite but that only
happened on a lightly loaded train. When occupied fully unless you
were at the window seat or next to the compartment door the view was
not that good and on a really busy train there was often someones bum
backing onto the corridor end window.
Conversely with the right companion and a compartment to oneselves on
a late long distance train the ability to snuggle down on the seats
,dim the light and pull down the blinds was a romantic way to travel
denied to ordinary travellers of today.


>
>Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
>4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
>yourself. 

Ah those loose chairs. I wonder what the relevent rules say about
having unfixed seating on modern stock. probably a no no.
Although I used to use them on the Reps some fellow passengers and I
came into non romantic close contact along with sundry beverages and
sandwiches once. Driver had confused Sunday and weekday timetables and
only remembered when most of the train had already gone through
Basingstoke until the brakes were heavly appied. We still had to set
back a fair way.  In a crash situation that would have been worse so I
can see the benifits of fixed down seating,even though crashes are
rare.
G.Harman

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:qegh7fpp5ce5$.r6xdvp5q1j4e$.dlg@40tude.net...

> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows
>
> Au contraire. Some had a whole corridor between them and the nearest
> window, and had a rather restricted view out.
>
> And then, of course there were plenty of Mk 1's that didn't have any
> seats at all. ;-)
>
> Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
> 4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
> yourself.


They also ran on the Manchester to Parkestone Quay Boat trains in 1972....
"Take a seat" anywhere you want to!

KW

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:20:19 GMT, oldship@interalpha.co.uk (g.harman)
wrote:


>Ah those loose chairs. I wonder what the relevent rules say about
>having unfixed seating on modern stock. probably a no no.


The Caledonian Sleeper lounge cars still have loose chairs.  Not
exactly modern stock, mind...

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 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:09:30 +0100, David Jackson
 wrote:


>The message 
>from Tony   Polson  contains these words:
>
>> >And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>> >mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>> >solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
>> >arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
>
>> Eh?  What are you on about?
>
>> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows, as did at
>> least the early Mk IIs.
>
>Correct.  
>However, in many minds the units which ran services south of London
>*are* Mk.1 coaches.  Those of us in the rest of the country know the
>Mk.1 as a part of express long-distance services, not some pootling
>little all-lamp-post-stopping service.  <g>   I remember sprawling out
>in a compartment of a Mk.1 coach on the Llangollen Railway and being
>asked by a very south-country voice (I don't think "Estuary English" had
>been thought of then) if the train was *all* first class, or was there a
>coach for ordinary people.  I put him out of his misery, but for the
>whole trip he kept his children on their best behaviour because they
>were in the posh coach.  I felt quite sorry for them.


In a compartment coach, which is what Mk1 stock was originally, the
space between the window and the wall behind the seat was taken up
with a head rest, from what I recall. I've just looked at some photos
taken on the West Somerset Railway, and the upholstery comes round
almost to the window edge in the Open Seconds.

The only problem with Mk1 stock is whether you are facing or back to
the engine. Fundamentally the layout lasted for the best part of 100
years until some accountant decided that he had a better idea. The
CIGs (which were Mk1 stock) had 4 compartments at each end, spoiled in
one case by having a door. If you wanted a better view, you always had
the option of standing in the corridor for a while.

Don't forget the value of those walls for holding luggage on racks.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:48:46 +0100, Terry Harper
 wrote:


> I've just looked at some photos
>taken on the West Somerset Railway, and the upholstery comes round
>almost to the window edge in the Open Seconds.
>


(I I'm understanding this correctly...) still found in the remaining
four Cigs. Very nice feature when a bit tired :-)

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:59:28 GMT, "Jack Taylor" 
> wrote:
> 
>>It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!
> 
> To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that
> a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
> world...
> 
> Neil
> 


It might be the end of your evening if you miss yourstop.

Henry Law

Guy Gorton wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:36:28 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
> 
>>In message , at 07:03:46 on Tue, 30 Aug 
>>2005, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>>>It's not difficult to avoid them if you object to a lack of view!
>>>To be fair, commuters have usually seen their route so many times that
>>>a lack of window view on one occasion isn't really the end of the
>>>world...
>>Perhaps, but something like half of Virgin (XC) passengers (when 
>>surveyed a year or so ago) made one or two trips with them a year. I'm 
>>sure the same will be true of most long distance trips.
> 
> Perhaps it was the same survey that noted that few passengers look out
> of the window anyway!  Far too busy with games, laptops, chatter,
> crosswords, books, etc; etc:
> Me?  I look out most of the time although darkness in the wilds of
> open country is pretty dull.  Can't say the same about the urban
> nighttime scene. 
> 
> Guy Gorton


Because people spend a lot of time not looking out of the window, it
does not follow that they do not want to be able to see out at all.

Henry Law

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 30 Aug 2005 03:09:41 -0700, "MIG" 
> wrote:
> 
>>313s generally run on routes where there are many similar stations in
>>quick succession and no announcements, and it is indeed difficult to
>>know where one is from many of the seats.
> 
> But also on the kind of route where most passengers are regulars and
> so would know their stop anyway...
> 
> Neil
> 


How would you know where you were on an underground line if you could
not see out of the window, as is problematic on eg 313 and similar junk
stock used on underground routes.

Henry Law

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:36:10 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>It might be the end of your evening if you miss yourstop.


In 21 years of travelling on Merseyrail (OK, not all of them as an
adult ;) ), which is exclusively operated using 507s and 508s, I have
never missed my stop.

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.

In article <df1i72$sg7$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Peter Masson  wrote:

>
>"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote
>>
>> And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>> mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>> solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
>> arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
>>
>That sounds like a 4VEP. Three decent seats per 4 car unit in the
>mini-saloon carved out of the luggage van.


Oh, the VEP was vile in all ways, but I was referring to any of
the old-style saloon stock with bays of seats centred on a
window, so that the table (if any) got the view and the passengers
were forced to crane forward to see out at anything other than an
angle. Compartment stock was even worse, of course.

The specific example which reminded me about this was an ex-Swedish
Railways, now Connex, coach on the Lulea-Narvik train last week.
Wonderful scenery, shame about the view out.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article ,
Tony   Polson   wrote:

>azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>>And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>>mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>>solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that 
>>arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(
>
>
>Eh?  What are you on about?
>
>The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows, as did at
>least the early Mk IIs.


Not any of the ones I travelled on, ever. They had the centre of the seat
bay aligned with the windows, but the seats were by the wall so
you had to lean forward for a clear view out.

___----___  ___ = wall, --- = window, || = seat
 ||     ||

OK, you could see forward (or back) at an angle, but you didn't have
the window right by you in most cases.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
g.harman  wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:39:38 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>>Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
>>4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
>>yourself. 
>Ah those loose chairs. I wonder what the relevent rules say about
>having unfixed seating on modern stock. probably a no no.


In use in .se, in the buffet coaches on the Connex trains from
Gothenburg to Narvik via Stockholm. The tables in the buffet car 
are loose, too.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

"Henry Law"  wrote

>
> How would you know where you were on an underground line if you could
> not see out of the window, as is problematic on eg 313 and similar junk
> stock used on underground routes.
>

The original stock on the City & South London was described as 'padded
cells', with very little in the way of glazing. Exit and entry was by means
of gates at the coach ends, 'controlled by a gateman who also informed
passengers of their whereabouts.' Both the original and the 1940s Southern
Railway stock on the Waterloo & City also had little in the way of windows.

Of course, these days on an underground line you know where you are because
Sonia keeps on telling you. ;-)

Peter

In article ,
Neil Williams  wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:09:45 +0100, Henry Law
> wrote:
>
>>I am no fan of Pendolinos, but the tiny windows (they are smaller than
>>they look from the outside) are partly for structural reasons - there is
>>a substantial shock wave when two trains pass at the 140mph design
>>speed.
>
>True.  Regular WCML travellers will recall the slight body deformation
>(and almighty bang) that occurred when two Mk3 sets passed at speed.
>
>That said, the shock wave is further reduced by the tilt profile which
>means the coaches are not as close together as they pass.


ITYM "pressure wave". You only get a shock when the pressure boundary
is moving faster than the speed of sound. The WCML isn't quite there
yet.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Andrew
Robert Breen  gently breathed:

>In article ,
>Tony   Polson   wrote:
>>azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

>>>And what about the traditional Mk.1-style coach, with its 100%
>>>mis-match between windows and seats and every seat beside a
>>>solid pillar? Was on a train in .se where tha coaches had that
>>>arrangement. I'd forgotten just how bad it is for seeing out :(

>>Eh?  What are you on about?
>>
>>The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows, as did at
>>least the early Mk IIs.

>Not any of the ones I travelled on, ever. They had the centre of the seat
>bay aligned with the windows, but the seats were by the wall so
>you had to lean forward for a clear view out.
>
>___----___  ___ = wall, --- = window, || = seat
> ||     ||
>
>OK, you could see forward (or back) at an angle, but you didn't have
>the window right by you in most cases.


And you wouldn't want to - having the window right beside the seats (as
in about half the seats on a 313 type unit) results in painful neck
strain as you sit with your head craned round through 90 degrees to get
a view.

The arrangement you have illustrated is the only sensible way to
coordinate seats and windows, it gives all passengers a view and also a
nice comfortable headrest beside the window should they wish to sleep
for a bit.

-- 
 - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk>    <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil
Williams  gently breathed:

>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:09:45 +0100, Henry Law
> wrote:

>>I am no fan of Pendolinos, but the tiny windows (they are smaller than
>>they look from the outside) are partly for structural reasons - there is
>>a substantial shock wave when two trains pass at the 140mph design
>>speed.

>True.  Regular WCML travellers will recall the slight body deformation
>(and almighty bang) that occurred when two Mk3 sets passed at speed.


I've done that in Mk1s at 100+ MPH, and yes, the bang could be quite
impressive!  You were aware the coach side had "jumped" as the loco of
the other train shot past, but there was never any worry of structural
issues, so that doesn't really explain why the windows had to be that
small - or is this actually an example of an advantage to
underframe-and-body design?  Horribly weak in an actual crash, but
better for general comfort / facilities the rest of the time?

-- 
 - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk>    <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

In message 
          Terry Harper  wrote:

[snip]

> 
> The only problem with Mk1 stock is whether you are facing or back to
> the engine. Fundamentally the layout lasted for the best part of 100
> years until some accountant decided that he had a better idea. 


For once the accountants are not to blame.  The reason for doing away with
compartments was that the travelling public in the 60s-70s didn't like them
because there had been a number of attacks on people travelling alone in
compartments and therefore open saloons were preferred.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 30 Aug 2005 03:09:41 -0700, "MIG" 
> wrote:
>
> >313s generally run on routes where there are many similar stations in
> >quick succession and no announcements, and it is indeed difficult to
> >know where one is from many of the seats.
>
> But also on the kind of route where most passengers are regulars and
> so would know their stop anyway...



But why should you have to count stations?  You might be reading a
paper and looking up occasionally.

Whatever the excuses, it's better to have a window view than not. It
makes the journey civilised.

In article <bc88f6a24d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
Graeme Wall   wrote:

>In message 
>          Terry Harper  wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> 
>> The only problem with Mk1 stock is whether you are facing or back to
>> the engine. Fundamentally the layout lasted for the best part of 100
>> years until some accountant decided that he had a better idea. 
>
>For once the accountants are not to blame.  The reason for doing away with
>compartments was that the travelling public in the 60s-70s didn't like them
>because there had been a number of attacks on people travelling alone in
>compartments and therefore open saloons were preferred.


And unidirectional - "airline" seating was first introduced as a
luxury feature in special/fare trains / first used in the USian
streamliners in the 30s, IIRC, and first seen in .UK in the 
luxury fit/out of the Budd "Silver Princess" coach in 1948 or
so.


-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:43:54 UTC, "Alan J. Flavell" 
 wrote:

: Oh, c'mon - although I personally have no reason to defend the 
: Potteries (being from the Black Country myself), I think it's fair
: to note that it's well placed for getting out into attractive 
: countryside.  So is Glasgow, for that matter ;-)

Oh, the countryside is lovely ... the Potteries towns, though, are not
the loveliest I have seen ...

Ian, Glasgow refugee


--

Henry Law wrote:

> 
> Because people spend a lot of time not looking out of the window, it
> does not follow that they do not want to be able to see out at all.


Very true - I don't spent much time in the lavatories, but I'd be distressed if 
there were none!

Alan

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> unidirectional - "airline" seating was first introduced as a
> luxury feature in special/fare trains / first used in the USian
> streamliners in the 30s, IIRC, and first seen in .UK in the 
> luxury fit/out of the Budd "Silver Princess" coach in 1948 or
> so.


.... and there was me thinking it was a tram thing ... 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15053471.html
(221 127 at Leeds, 21 Jul 2004)

On 31 Aug 2005 08:39:16 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>The specific example which reminded me about this was an ex-Swedish
>Railways, now Connex, coach on the Lulea-Narvik train last week.
>Wonderful scenery, shame about the view out.


This is true of many of the older compartment coaches in Europe.
Fortunately, the DB Bm235, a newer variant, and most refurbs, have
wider windows, just like the Mk2 stock does.

The solution is to take the middle, rather than the window, seat -
though this is less comfortable when the compartment is full!

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 31 Aug 2005 13:23:38 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>And unidirectional - "airline" seating was first introduced as a
>luxury feature in special/fare trains / first used in the USian
>streamliners in the 30s, IIRC, and first seen in .UK in the 
>luxury fit/out of the Budd "Silver Princess" coach in 1948 or
>so.


And I do find I prefer it when enough space is given - and, indeed, it
should allow more space to be provided because it is more
space-efficient than table seating.

Full window alignment and airline seating are not mutually exclusive,
however.  The original Class 158 layout has both, just unfortunately
with too many windows and seats in the space available!

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 Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:43:40 +0100, Pyromancer
 wrote:


> or is this actually an example of an advantage to
>underframe-and-body design?  Horribly weak in an actual crash, but
>better for general comfort / facilities the rest of the time?


I think it is, as with a non-load-bearing body you can put the windows
and/or door apertures wherever you like.  To do that with a monocoque
coach you have many more variables to deal with, and so it is
usually[1] too expensive.

[1] The Mk2 does it, but nothing that I can think of since.

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 31 Aug 2005 04:20:51 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>But why should you have to count stations?  You might be reading a
>paper and looking up occasionally.


I didn't count stations.  Having travelled in both directions on
Merseyrail from Aughton Park probably several thousand times, the
track noise, shadows etc were enough for me to be able to tell where I
was.

That said, the 508 doesn't have very many seats where you cannot see
out of a window at all, not even by looking across to the other side
of the coach.


>Whatever the excuses, it's better to have a window view than not. It
>makes the journey civilised.


I won't disagree with that, but some, especially those wishing to
sleep or read, may well do.

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 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:24:03 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>
>"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
>news:qegh7fpp5ce5$.r6xdvp5q1j4e$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>>> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows
>>
>> Au contraire. Some had a whole corridor between them and the nearest
>> window, and had a rather restricted view out.
>>
>> And then, of course there were plenty of Mk 1's that didn't have any
>> seats at all. ;-)
>>
>> Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
>> 4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
>> yourself.
>
>They also ran on the Manchester to Parkestone Quay Boat trains in 1972....
>"Take a seat" anywhere you want to!
>
>KW
>


Also found on the Waterloo - Exeter trains in the late 1970's - noted
for an "aroma" (which I can't describe - not unpleasent but unique).

G

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 31 Aug 2005 13:23:38 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
> wrote:
> 
>>And unidirectional - "airline" seating was first introduced as a
>>luxury feature in special/fare trains / first used in the USian
>>streamliners in the 30s, IIRC, and first seen in .UK in the 
>>luxury fit/out of the Budd "Silver Princess" coach in 1948 or
>>so.
> 
> And I do find I prefer it when enough space is given - and, indeed, it
> should allow more space to be provided because it is more
> space-efficient than table seating.
> 
> Full window alignment and airline seating are not mutually exclusive,
> however.  The original Class 158 layout has both, just unfortunately
> with too many windows and seats in the space available!
> 
> Neil
> 


So does Corail stock but the trouble is you lose the luggage space
between seat backs, and if you are travelling with another person, it is
easier to talk if you are facing.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:36:10 +0100, Henry Law
>  wrote:
> 
>>It might be the end of your evening if you miss yourstop.
> 
> In 21 years of travelling on Merseyrail (OK, not all of them as an
> adult ;) ), which is exclusively operated using 507s and 508s, I have
> never missed my stop.
> 
> Neil
> 


Clever you.

Henry Law

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:20:19 GMT, oldship@interalpha.co.uk (g.harman)
wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:39:38 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>wrote:
>>
>>Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
>>4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
>>yourself. 

>Ah those loose chairs. I wonder what the relevent rules say about
>having unfixed seating on modern stock. probably a no no.
>Although I used to use them on the Reps some fellow passengers and I
>came into non romantic close contact along with sundry beverages and
>sandwiches once. Driver had confused Sunday and weekday timetables and
>only remembered when most of the train had already gone through
>Basingstoke until the brakes were heavly appied. We still had to set
>back a fair way.  In a crash situation that would have been worse so I
>can see the benifits of fixed down seating,even though crashes are
>rare.


The Sheffield-St Pancras service before the HSTs took over often had a
restaurant car that was an empty shell, with fixed tables and loose
dining chairs. Whether the intention was to persuade people to leave
the dining car as soon as possible and return to their seat, I don't
know, but it always seemed daft to me that a first class passenger
should pay a premium to sit on a dining chair in a barn with
condensation streaming down the windows.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:52:22 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>So does Corail stock but the trouble is you lose the luggage space
>between seat backs, and if you are travelling with another person, it is
>easier to talk if you are facing.


Which is why the 158 is a good balance - almost exactly half and half.

Luggage is better off in large racks at the vehicle ends or in the
overhead racks, anyway.  The space between the seats tends to be a
funny shape that won't fit a lot of it - and don't forget that much
(all?) Mk1 LHCS had no accessible space there anyway - the North Wales
Mk1 TSOs certainly didn't.

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.

"Terry Harper"  wrote in message 
news:2vcch19coc399q951b8molbbo04n166bn3@4ax.com...

>  I don't
> know, but it always seemed daft to me that a first class passenger
> should pay a premium to sit on a dining chair in a barn with
> condensation streaming down the windows.


Not just the First class.

Ahhhh,  Condensation, that's what we all miss in these "Modern" rubbish 
trains... :-))

KW

In article ,
Neil Williams  wrote:

>On 31 Aug 2005 08:39:16 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
>wrote:
>
>>The specific example which reminded me about this was an ex-Swedish
>>Railways, now Connex, coach on the Lulea-Narvik train last week.
>>Wonderful scenery, shame about the view out.
>
>This is true of many of the older compartment coaches in Europe.
>Fortunately, the DB Bm235, a newer variant, and most refurbs, have
>wider windows, just like the Mk2 stock does.
>
>The solution is to take the middle, rather than the window, seat -
>though this is less comfortable when the compartment is full!


That would have worked - unfortunately the train I was on was
pretty well full up. Still, one bit of northern .se looks very much
like another..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Neil Williams  wrote:

> The Caledonian Sleeper lounge cars still have loose chairs.  Not
> exactly modern stock, mind...


The 'Puccino's' cafe area on ex-Southern Brighton Express 319s have loose
chairs and possibly tables.

As for VEPs, I like them because they have the best view of any unit.  If
you're above a certain height you can see over the seat backs and basically
there's a whole wall of glass on each side.  I hope someone keeps some as an
observation car with the seats stripped out.

Theo

On 04 Sep 2005 22:27:40 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:


>The 'Puccino's' cafe area on ex-Southern Brighton Express 319s have loose
>chairs and possibly tables.


I don't think that you will find them like that any more. The ones
I've seen have the bar area closed, and ordinary seating.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On 04 Sep 2005 22:27:40 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos 


>As for VEPs, I like them because they have the best view of any unit.  If
>you're above a certain height you can see over the seat backs and basically
>there's a whole wall of glass on each side. 


Broken with too many pillars for my liking.

Much maligned as they are, but the best all-round view you'll get from
anything in the UK these days is from a Pacer unit.  Low seat backs
(except in some refurbs) and a "wall of glass" as you describe,
including full-height door windows.  For the best view, the
side-facing seats are ideal.

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.

"Theo Markettos" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:CR*ZMTXq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> Neil Williams  wrote:
> > The Caledonian Sleeper lounge cars still have loose chairs.  Not
> > exactly modern stock, mind...
>
> The 'Puccino's' cafe area on ex-Southern Brighton Express 319s have loose
> chairs and possibly tables.
>

Is it not true that the safety police have banned loose chairs (except
wheelchairs)? I'm not sure whether this is because they might create a
danger in an accident situation or, whether it was because they might be
used as weapons by disaffected passengers fighting among themselves or
assaulting staff.

MJW

In article <705Re.4748$t4.4717@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
   Ken Ward  wrote:


> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
> news:qegh7fpp5ce5$.r6xdvp5q1j4e$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > Tony Polson wrote:
> >
> >> The Mk1 coaches had all the seats aligned with the windows
> >
> > Au contraire. Some had a whole corridor between them and the nearest
> > window, and had a rather restricted view out.
> >
> > And then, of course there were plenty of Mk 1's that didn't have any
> > seats at all. ;-)
> >
> > Though my favourite Mk 1's were the buffets that ran in Scotland and in
> > 4-REPs, where you could decide on the seat/window alignment for
> > yourself.

> They also ran on the Manchester to Parkestone Quay Boat trains in
> 1972.... "Take a seat" anywhere you want to!


As I recall, most of the BR Mk 1 Restaurant (19xx RU) and
Restaurant-Buffet (16xx, 17xx RB) cars with a kitchen had loose seating,
including many of the later conversions. It was only the non-kitchen
vehicles which were predominantly fixed seating.

David