Yes that was a group of vocal commuters who got their knickers in a twist over that. Commuters can be a fickle bunch! I don’t personally have a problem with the 450s on the Portsmouth fasts in the peaks and the friends of mine I was talking about mainly travel in the off peaks and like the ease of getting on and off the 450s and 444s with their correctly positioned grab rails and less of a gape between the step off and platform.
I expect the intention is as per the post in the frequently requested diagrams section:
Just to make this clear, the people who moaned about the 2+3 seats who were whipped up into the ‘No to 450’ campaign, were those from Haslemere, Godalming, Guildford. That is the Surrey commuters. Not those from Portsmouth. As I remember this was done by someone called David Habershon and encouraged by the MPs along the route.
That’s so different!! 701s are replacing trains with comfortable (IMO and many others O) seats, declassified first class and pull down tables - the Aventras do not have these. 442s are far more suitable for Intercity services than a 450. I’ve travelled on all one hundred and twenty seven of the awful things so trust me I know - for a long journey they’re awful. The 442s are in every way an upgrade and the no450 bunch have definitely got what they wanted yet want more.
Already been covered. 800s are not an option as anything more than 5 car are too long and so would have less seating than current 158/159 combos. Plus aventras are not an option as no DMU or bi mode type exists as of yet.
442s and others are the best and only option for now. Lets move on and get back to the topic at hand.
the issues with the 442s are not the sort that can be fixed anyway. Its not like you can take an existing train and make the doorway bigger is it
As delivered they had two (two!) sets of big doors on the motor vehicle, but they were plated over in exchange for more seating space. Funny how things go around isn't it?
Battery trains. Although nobody has leased them yet, there are 37 of these trains so they could replace the 442s, 158s (used with batteries) and some 159s (used with batteries).
Are you sure there are enough?
So a completely hypothetical situation then, and so unlikely that it can be ignored for now?
Unlikely? Porterbrook say about battery flex on their website and it looks pretty likely to happen and I think most people would agree that 350/2s would be the logical replacement. The 158/159 idea is just an idea from myself but I wouldn't say it is too far fetched.
I was meaning replacing SWR stock being highly unlikely, given the rigid franchise spec, not that the technology is unlikely. But I expect that Porterbrook wouldn’t modify any of the fleet without a known user lined up.
Certainly, although aren't First wanting to make amendments to the franchise agreement or was that just a rumour?
I don’t think they’re discussing that sort of amendment, the logical aim of any renegotiation is to reduce their costs...
Portsmouth to London is not, never has been and never will be, an inter city journey. I do agree though that 3+2 isn't suitable for that distance.
18 will be enough. Eventually you’d find there were no suitable 450 routes left to extend to 12 car, or 444 to 10 car.
Why does it not, in your opinion, qualify for intercity?
