Blindtraveler
Established Member
Just what use is a flimsy paper towel? None that I can find, makes more mess and totally ineffective.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Unnecessary features on rolling stock that are bad or inconvenient for passengers
- Thread starter Intercity 225
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The only difference between a modern paper towel and one of the older tough ones is that I use two rather than one for a good dry. It's a lot more effective than loo paper, which is what I tend to use when the only alternative is one of those pointless hand dryers.
Death
Established Member
Oooh...Now where do I start?!?!? 
hock: hock:
...That said, I can't and won't say a bad word against the 373s themselves. It's thanks to those I've found a way to obliterate Depression! Once ridden, forever smitten!
>> Death <<
hock: - Toilets:
- SENSOR TAPS!!! What in the name of Odin is wrong with a floor stud, especially if it's connected in parallel to a sensor so those who struggle with one can use the other?
- Overloaded toilet paper dispensers that shred the paper rather than serve it! (See SWT for a historical example)
- Toilet flush buttons/levers/cocks (Yes, those!
) located anywhere other than the immediate vicinity of the toilet bowl. Such as the Czech EuroCity I had with the flush button by the door of all places! 
- Hand dryers: Pendo retrofits aside, trains in the UK are the only places where hand-dryers seem to suck rather than blow...
- Powered doors that either jam or stick, causing many passengers to force them open and render them unusable for disabled pax who rely on that facility. Normally winds up with me or the Guard having to sort it out, and I've probably gained enough experience in this to qualify as a quick-fixer on just about any Desiro class by now! :roll:
- CETs not being fitted where it is known possible to install them. I like GWR a great deal (Especially with the SETs coming in! ) but to this day their routes are still full of s***! hock::roll:
- Saloon:
- Interior doors that are too slow, too quiet, have no presence detection (=Loudly complaining crushed pax) or the "soft-touch" buttons on some of them (SIEMENS!!!
) which never. bloody. work!!! :roll: - Vestibules on 222s: Did someone at Bombardier miss the word "Claustrophobia"? The 222s are the only ones where the vestibules are so small it makes a standing journey impossible to enjoy! :eek:
- Motor/wheel noise damping: This is unforgiveable. It may be a nice sound for some of us, but for the blind and partially sighted it gives them an important and valuable clue as to how fast, in what direction and (If they know the line well enough) exactly where the train is moving. (Points at Siemens again, and the Class 374s in particular)
- Small windows in exterior doors. There is a good reason why some of us like to stand by the doors for the duration of the journey, and it's not for making a quick Brexit! :eek::razz:
- Interior doors that are too slow, too quiet, have no presence detection (=Loudly complaining crushed pax) or the "soft-touch" buttons on some of them (SIEMENS!!!
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the 373s in this context. The internal doors on those are completely pneumatic (The opening lever and sensor bar are both mechanically linked to a valve in the frame via a trip bar above the door) and though they're engineered in the perfect way that Alstom built stuff tends to be, they can have quite some bite to them - Especially now that the fleet's starting to get on a bit and parts are wearing out quicker. For children and less sturdy passengers I can see this becoming a safety issue if not addressed in good time...
hock: ...That said, I can't and won't say a bad word against the 373s themselves. It's thanks to those I've found a way to obliterate Depression! Once ridden, forever smitten!
>> Death <<
43021HST
Established Member
Probably been said before but I feel it needs saying again.
Announcements! I don't understand why some companies insist on them and others don't. Show's how they're not required. I travel with my headphones in just to get away from the endless barrage.
The PIS shows all the information you need.
Even then I found the travelling environment on non PIS fitted trains to be far more pleasant without a load of flashing rolling LEDs in your periphery.
Safety Leaflets, on the backs of seats, as often found in the FGW HSTs, no one reads them and, they must be an awful waste of paper.
Announcements! I don't understand why some companies insist on them and others don't. Show's how they're not required. I travel with my headphones in just to get away from the endless barrage.
The PIS shows all the information you need.
Even then I found the travelling environment on non PIS fitted trains to be far more pleasant without a load of flashing rolling LEDs in your periphery.
Safety Leaflets, on the backs of seats, as often found in the FGW HSTs, no one reads them and, they must be an awful waste of paper.
Well aren't you lucky to not be blind/visually impaired. Unfortunately, not everyone can be like you...
a requirement for visually impaired as the previous posters says...but indeed there are TOO MANY.
bramling
Veteran Member
As always, the standard response when anyone dares to criticise announcements. This doesn't preclude a reduction in the number of announcements to a minimum, and an attempt to keep them short and to the point.
yeh, clear laziness by train companies to do no research and just go overkill to keep the regulators happy...although i have to look at the DfT specs, maybe they DO want passengers to be flooded with announcements.
I would agree, announcements should be short, to the point, and only used as necessary. However, the way Klambert phrased their post seemed to suggest that they should all be gotten rid of - which is obviously not going to happen because of PRM TSI and also because we can make rail travel more accessible with relative ease with today's technology and you would hope that nobody is that self-centred that they'd reverse this for personal gain.
I prefer the Class 387 style...full width 2 +2 plus more aisle standing room.
fusionblue
Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Messages
- 326
The "perch seats" around the doors on the 376. I get the idea, but the design implies three people can fit there. It is a very snug fit for three; especially if any one is "generously proportioned".
There is no "the S Stock layout", there is only 2× "an S Stock layout".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
For the record I meant the Met Line S-stock layout.
This is more on stations than on trains but why do we need the excessive amount of announcements for example "Please don't board a train if you're not intending to travel' surely this is obvious and doesn't need to be announced?
Also this one: "Platform 1 for the GWR service to Exmouth via Exeter Central. Calling at: Exeter Central ". Why say via Exeter central then announce it immediately after again? I could understand if it was say a Paignton to London Paddington service via Bristol to let people k ow it isn't the direct route but not for every service.
Also this one: "Platform 1 for the GWR service to Exmouth via Exeter Central. Calling at: Exeter Central ". Why say via Exeter central then announce it immediately after again? I could understand if it was say a Paignton to London Paddington service via Bristol to let people k ow it isn't the direct route but not for every service.
Does anyone know why train builders nowadays feel it necessary to build trains without toilet windows? Some older trains, such as Class 150 and 156 DMUs, have also had the toilet window removed or blanked off on refurbishment.
This isn't particularly inconvenient or annoying, although some people might think it makes the toilet compartments feel more claustrophobic than when they had a frosted glass window. But it does mean that they can no longer turn the train interior lights out on a sunny day when running on a route with no tunnels (or if they do, they have to keep the light in the toilet turned on).
Then again, turning interior lights off (and just turning them on to go through a tunnel if there is one) doesn't seem to be such common practice nowadays as it was in BR days - maybe the health & safety have decided that it is unsafe?
This isn't particularly inconvenient or annoying, although some people might think it makes the toilet compartments feel more claustrophobic than when they had a frosted glass window. But it does mean that they can no longer turn the train interior lights out on a sunny day when running on a route with no tunnels (or if they do, they have to keep the light in the toilet turned on).
Then again, turning interior lights off (and just turning them on to go through a tunnel if there is one) doesn't seem to be such common practice nowadays as it was in BR days - maybe the health & safety have decided that it is unsafe?
A few years ago, general lighting in new trains became mostly flourescent types. Flourescent lighting does not take kindly to repeated switching off and on.
More recently, LEDs have become the norm so there is no significant power-saving in switching so they are left switched on.
BucksBones
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 332
:roll:
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
These modern accessible toilets are a separately built complete module that is inserted into the carriage as a single item. So you have a wall within a wall.
It probably would be technically possible to include a window in the design, but as the toilets are a single standard design and train bodyshells - particularly window positions - are not...
You could probably just drill a hole in the relevant place. For that matter, do they really include an external wall in the inserted module? Hotel rooms, and student residences and that kind of thing are generally just pre-built modules
now as well, and they manage to include windows.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Funny you should mention this: It may well be an urban myth, but we're often told that the airliner of the future won't have windows at all- just external cameras and internal screens mounted on the fuselage as this will be far lighter than the sealed-unit glazing that can withstand the pressure changes and buffeting of aviation.
No it's useless. Whenever I have been on a train with 3+2 seating, there are rarely more than 2 people in the 3s even when people are standing.
If the train is that crowded, fewer seats with more room for standing is a better option. If it's not that crowded 2+2 seating is better.
Obviously designed by people who never travel on crowded trains.
306024
Established Member
No it isn't useless. Easy to say if you are based in Edinburgh, try commuting from Wickford, Billericay or Chelmsford, most of those passengers do indeed take up the middle seat rather than stand for that distance / amount of time.
This old argument goes round and round, happy to agree with the 2+2 supporters providing they give up their seat for me.
This old argument goes round and round, happy to agree with the 2+2 supporters providing they give up their seat for me.
When travelling on the continent recently, I noticed that every set of seats had an individual dustbin underneath the window. Not only did this impinge on leg room, but was also a bit smelly, and far too close to my head for comfort in terms of hygiene.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
You, obviously, don't use peak hour trains into London. The 0713 from Beltchley is full by Berkhampstead with every seat taken. By the time it gets to Watford people often cant get on even to stand.
gg1
Established Member
My experience of 3+2 seating is limited to Cross City line 323s, at peak times the rows of 3 are invariably all occupied, although I do agree 2+2 seats with 3+2 spacing are a better option overall.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That train (my first choice of London train from Bletchley) is run using Class 319s which are mostly, but not completely, 2+2 seated but with narrow seats and plenty of standing room. Were they 3+2 there'd be even more left behind.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And take longer to empty than it would take to pick up the rubbish off the floor were it deposited there instead.
An incredibly stupid piece of design, those. Eurostar used to have them, but they seem to have been removed (I used to remove and place in the luggage rack myself).
DarloRich
Veteran Member
thanks - last time i used that train it was a 350/2.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You do sometimes get that when the 319s break down. It's long been a "classic stock" train otherwise.
- Status