We don't know how well padded these seats will be, we don't know how much legroom there will be ("seating pitch" and "legroom" can be two different things).
It's not my fault that Abellio refuse to answer the question, leg-room and seating pitch are two different things but the seats involved are marketed on the fact they can fit more passengers with the same amount of leg-room with a lower seat pitch because of the niche which is nowhere near substitute for a higher seat pitch because for tall people it forced you to sit with your legs dead center and squashed like hell like on some of the seats another posted pointed out.
Simple thing is on a number of occasions Abellio have been asked for seat pitch and have refused to provide it, they never answer a simple question with a simple answer, not my fault, why would Abellio avoid answering a question if the answer was positive? Makes no sense. If they don't provide the answers directly you have to assume that the seats have been picked for the qualities they have.
1. Lightness
2. Price
3. High Density potential.
Or do you believe that FISA have marketed their seats on only three principles but actually their marketing team should be fired because actually they have other qualities that they are not showing off to potential customers? Do you believe Abellio picked a seat from a company that was based on those three things, despite the fact they didn't want them for those three things and the company itself has better seats to offer for situations where none of those three things are required?
If they didn't want high density seating, why did Abellio not go for the other seating options FISA had which are designed for non high density seating and more padding. What's the benefit of choosing a high density version of a seat when you don't need high density, better choose a non high density seat no?
There are certainly some people upset at the prospect of "proper trains" (i.e. loco hauled) with modern units,
Yet nobody on this thread has said that is a reason why and it isn't a reason why in my case either, but carry on accusing me of things that I have never said saying that I'm some sort of fanboy about loco hauled stock when it couldn't be further from the truth, I couldn't care less if a train is loco hauled or underfloor engines, in-fact I think the people who are obsessed by that are quite frankly silly, but don't let that spoil your fantasy world accusations.
Is it the doors? (when mid-unit doors are the norm for most journeys nowadays - including Newcastle to Liverpool or Glasgow to Edinburgh)
I don't care less about the doors too much either, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again. It's a clear case you are struggling to win an argument that you have to keep inventing reasons for me saying what I am and speculating on stuff that I haven't even said to try and get a point across, it's quite sad actually and makes you come across as rather petty that you have to be so-condescending to keep using your vivid imagination.
One minute people are crammed into cleaning cupboards because trains are so busy, the next there's so much spare capacity that fussy passengers can choose to wait half an hour for the next service because they'd rather be late than slum it on a 360...
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, other than continually bringing red herrings into this, this topic is about FLIRTS, FLIRTS are to replace regional and intercity trains, what the AVENTURA capacity and the crowding is like or the commuter stocks has really nothing to do with this thread, I know some people are trying to justify things by bringing unrelated topics into this thread in order to try and win an argument they cannot win by just comparing like for like, but this topic is about FLIRTS, if you want to go and discuss commuter stock, maybe best go and start another thread about them or post in the general anglia rolling stock topic, rather than continually drag the thread off topic.
.one minute it's a complaint that passengers "don't get the decent service they overpay for" then there are complaints about Abellio replacing all old trains with brand new stock.
It's obvious that East Anglia needed new rolling stock, nobody disputes that, it doesn't mean that automatically it means that they can give us any old thing and we'll be happy just because it's new, at the end of the day having new rolling stock is good but the quality and comfort is important too and there needs to be a balance which is sorely missing in this order ased on everything that I have seen so far and the conversations I have had with people in the industry, people who are involved in the rolling stock industry (but apparently people on a forum know better than people who actually work in the industry....) suggests that this was done on a very much quantity over quality basis and to do that some corners were cut.
Based on what evidence? (assuming something more substantial than "some people on Twitter moan about it" - since people on Twitter obviously moan about most things)
Based upon my own eyes of commuting on the GEML for years on end, based on actually knowing people who worked in the area for years on the trains and previous passenger stakeholder events, forums and meet the manager sessions.
Don't let fact get in the way of a good story though, perhaps instead of spending your time on a forum trying to put words in my mouth, you should get out a little bit more and see what really happens on the GEML.
There's an easy way to end the seating debate. Abelllio answer the question,
I wouldn't hold my breath though, because this whole rolling stock exercise is a huge PR drive for Abellio first and everyone else last.
