|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 30, 2018 20:13:31 GMT
There isn't a general thread for the LO, but this picture has surfaced on the web.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 30, 2018 21:46:42 GMT
Really not convinced that the sea of black around and above the side windows is any sort of improvement. Makes the livery rather "dull". The current white above and below the side windows gives a rather nice clean livery even if it is probably harder work to keep it looking presentable.
|
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Aug 30, 2018 21:51:48 GMT
It's been at Ilford for a few weeks, this updated livery leads me to think about universal continuity in the livery of Overground Trains across the board, as the carriages resemble the delayed 710's. I'd imagine the moquette has been updated as per the new moquette seen on Geoff Marshall's LO train video on youtube.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 30, 2018 22:04:44 GMT
Is this real or a photoshop. The trains are barely 10 years old. If this is true, then a mega waste of money and angers me at a time we are getting bus cuts left right and centre. I would rather see the seats in these trains dumped and replaced with ones similar to the S-stock. They are hard as hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Aug 30, 2018 22:07:43 GMT
Is this real or a photoshop. The trains are barely 10 years old. If this is true, then a mega waste of money and angers me at a time we are getting bus cuts left right and centre. I would rather see the seats in these trains dumped and replaced with ones similar to the S-stock. They are hard as hell. All real - In my opinion, a worn s stock cushion is equally as bad as a Capitalstar 378 seat. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 30, 2018 23:05:29 GMT
Is this real or a photoshop. The trains are barely 10 years old. If this is true, then a mega waste of money and angers me at a time we are getting bus cuts left right and centre. I would rather see the seats in these trains dumped and replaced with ones similar to the S-stock. They are hard as hell. Err you seem to imagine that TfL are paying extra for this. This will be all part and parcel of a pre specified refresh in the long term maintenance agreement that TfL have with Bombardier. There will probably another 1 or 2 of these refreshes over the train's life. TfL will have budgeted for all of this as operating expenditure and they will be extremely reluctant to reopen a negotiation on such a big contract because it will only likely lead to cost increases or reductions in availability to TfL's detriment and Bombardier's advantage. As the 378s are highly likely to be stuck in the capital for their entire 30-40 year life it makes sense to keep them looking reasonably fresh rather than having them rot and then need a big intervention. Look at the disastrous state the 1972 stock got into in terms of their seat moquette. I struggle to see much difference between the Bombardier seat cushions on the 09 stock, S Stock, 378s or 345s - all dreadful unless you are resemble a stick insect.  I suspect the 710s will be no better. All train manufacturers seem to have forgotten how to make a decent comfortable seat. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 31, 2018 23:30:55 GMT
Is this real or a photoshop. The trains are barely 10 years old. If this is true, then a mega waste of money and angers me at a time we are getting bus cuts left right and centre. I would rather see the seats in these trains dumped and replaced with ones similar to the S-stock. They are hard as hell. Err you seem to imagine that TfL are paying extra for this. This will be all part and parcel of a pre specified refresh in the long term maintenance agreement that TfL have with Bombardier. There will probably another 1 or 2 of these refreshes over the train's life. TfL will have budgeted for all of this as operating expenditure and they will be extremely reluctant to reopen a negotiation on such a big contract because it will only likely lead to cost increases or reductions in availability to TfL's detriment and Bombardier's advantage. As the 378s are highly likely to be stuck in the capital for their entire 30-40 year life it makes sense to keep them looking reasonably fresh rather than having them rot and then need a big intervention. Look at the disastrous state the 1972 stock got into in terms of their seat moquette. I struggle to see much difference between the Bombardier seat cushions on the 09 stock, S Stock, 378s or 345s - all dreadful unless you are resemble a stick insect. I suspect the 710s will be no better. All train manufacturers seem to have forgotten how to make a decent comfortable seat. There is at least some spring in the s stock seats. The 378s is just like pure hard wood, nothing. They were like this from new, it is the same thing for the new Crossrail trains, they would deflate your nutsuck if you sit down on them too hard. What was wrong with the 72 stock interior?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 1, 2018 9:02:15 GMT
What was wrong with the 72 stock interior? The seat cushions and moquette on the 72 stock got into the most appalling condition. Disgustingly dirty and soiled. They were the worst condition of any tube seats I've seen in all of my time in London. I still cannot understand how the line management allowed them to deteriorate to such an extent. It's as if they decided they would never clean the seats and just allowed them to rot. No other tube stock has that problem - you get some wear and tear but it is usually attended to. Eventually the public protest about the B'loo seats was sufficient for someone to find the money to replace the moquette so now the seats are in better state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 13:30:14 GMT
It looks terrible, did they not carry out different design options and if so is this really the best they came out with?
The problem with black (as someone who owns a black car I can testify) is its very easy for it to show dirt. I can’t really understand why black, and more importantly black above white, could in any way shape or form be considered as a good look.
The London Overground is famous for being orange... why not increase the amount of visible orange on the trains’ exterior rather than an unwelcoming dark colour?
Reminds me of the experimental dark blue window-to-roof colour an east London line A stock train sported when LU were transitioning from aluminium to painted stock. And that looked awful as well lol
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 20, 2018 21:08:41 GMT
I was pondering this exact point yesterday whilst sat on a class 700 yesterday evening. The seats are like a rock hard ironing boards and I noticed that some passengers even resorted to sitting sideways if the seat next to them was spare. I also had the misfortune of sitting on a class 376 that morning too. How hard can it be to design a decent seat? Networkers are older yet offer a far comfier ride than the 2 newer models on the Greenwich line. I always wonder if anyone tests the long term comfort of seats and the ergonomics of a train interior before the build goes ahead. My tolerance is about 2 minutes for these flat plastic panels. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 20, 2018 22:18:52 GMT
I was pondering this exact point yesterday whilst sat on a class 700 yesterday evening. The seats are like a rock hard ironing boards and I noticed that some passengers even resorted to sitting sideways if the seat next to them was spare. I also had the misfortune of sitting on a class 376 that morning too. How hard can it be to design a decent seat? Networkers are older yet offer a far comfier ride than the 2 newer models on the Greenwich line. I always wonder if anyone tests the long term comfort of seats and the ergonomics of a train interior before the build goes ahead. My tolerance is about 2 minutes for these flat plastic panels. Well this has been endlessly debated on twitter and rail forums. The basis issue with the 700s is that First were not allowed to be involved in specifying the interior fitout and facilities. DfT specified everything and is pushed down to lowest levels to keep the cost of the PFI deal for the trains as low as possible. There are similar problems with the IEPs for LNER and GWR where standard class seating has been panned. It will be interesting to see how Hull Trains get their Hitachi bi-modes fitted out. Not like DfT specced ones I suspect. Ditto the new trains for Trans Pennine Express. A secondary factor has been concern over train accidents which has led to be proliferation of high backed seats on many trains to minimise whiplash. I really dislike them - especially on suburban stock and their retrofit to GWR's HSTs was awful. Spoilt what was an excellent internal layout. The other problem is the lack of a decent strategy for capacity expansion which means DfT pushes for squashing in as many seats as possible to try to improve capacity rather than buying more and longer trains and enhancing the infrastructure to take them. Sorry rant over but the lack of doing sensible things drives me nuts at times and I don't even have to use main line trains very often. In passing it's worth noting that DfT have delayed the refranchising of Cross Country because of FailingGrayling's "rail review" process. Thus a franchise that is saddled with a constrained train fleet and huge overcrowding into many regional centres is lumbered with no changes for even more years. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 21, 2018 5:58:38 GMT
I was pondering this exact point yesterday whilst sat on a class 700 yesterday evening. The seats are like a rock hard ironing boards and I noticed that some passengers even resorted to sitting sideways if the seat next to them was spare. I also had the misfortune of sitting on a class 376 that morning too. How hard can it be to design a decent seat? Networkers are older yet offer a far comfier ride than the 2 newer models on the Greenwich line. I always wonder if anyone tests the long term comfort of seats and the ergonomics of a train interior before the build goes ahead. My tolerance is about 2 minutes for these flat plastic panels. Well this has been endlessly debated on twitter and rail forums. The basis issue with the 700s is that First were not allowed to be involved in specifying the interior fitout and facilities. DfT specified everything and is pushed down to lowest levels to keep the cost of the PFI deal for the trains as low as possible. There are similar problems with the IEPs for LNER and GWR where standard class seating has been panned. It will be interesting to see how Hull Trains get their Hitachi bi-modes fitted out. Not like DfT specced ones I suspect. Ditto the new trains for Trans Pennine Express. A secondary factor has been concern over train accidents which has led to be proliferation of high backed seats on many trains to minimise whiplash. I really dislike them - especially on suburban stock and their retrofit to GWR's HSTs was awful. Spoilt what was an excellent internal layout. The other problem is the lack of a decent strategy for capacity expansion which means DfT pushes for squashing in as many seats as possible to try to improve capacity rather than buying more and longer trains and enhancing the infrastructure to take them. Sorry rant over but the lack of doing sensible things drives me nuts at times and I don't even have to use main line trains very often. In passing it's worth noting that DfT have delayed the refranchising of Cross Country because of FailingGrayling's "rail review" process. Thus a franchise that is saddled with a constrained train fleet and huge overcrowding into many regional centres is lumbered with no changes for even more years. With GWR, only the 800s were ordered by the DfT. The 802s were ordered independently by GWR, by these have the same seats (but different moquette). |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 14, 2019 22:35:18 GMT
I saw this train yesterday, it looked better in the flesh and more modern. It was on the East London line branch.
|
|
I suspect the 710s will be no better. All train manufacturers seem to have forgotten how to make a decent comfortable seat.
