|
Title: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: Lee on February 18, 2008, 22:56:16 I presume that the Oldfield Park Train Blog is referring to the Class 150/1 units in the link below.
http://oldfieldparktrains.blogspot.com/2008/02/ken-livingstones-rejects.html Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: Chris from Nailsea on February 18, 2008, 23:03:00 Well, sorry, Ken, but while they may not be good enough for you London types, they're a rare treat for us poor local commuters, west of Bristol!
??? Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: dog box on February 19, 2008, 07:34:31 Ah the Stinkylink 150s...not bad although one of them sounds a bit like a washing machine when in it.
Chris These units are as built with 2/3 seating remember though our 150/2s had this style untill Wales and West Trains or was it Wessex decided to replace them with the 2/2 Chapman Seats thus reducing the seating capacity, whilst increasing standing room. So prehaps the 150/2 gives a distorted view of an overcrowded train comparied to the two 150/1s we have Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: tramway on February 19, 2008, 08:19:08 When I first started my Trowbridge/Bristol commute Wessex had just started the conversion, and it was noticeable that many people preferrred to stand rather than squeeze in the 3 bank of seats, so yes there is a decrease in seating capacity but a marginal decrease in seated passengers. Only shortcoming was the stark lighting which still comes as a shock on early winter mornings.
Also remember that 150^s were regulars on Cardiff/Portsmouth runs so 3+2 was an absolute nightmare over those sort of distances. At least the Wessex conversion gave a semblance of 158 comfort in a 150. Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: vacman on February 19, 2008, 08:56:34 Great units!
Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: Chris from Nailsea on February 19, 2008, 22:16:06 Chris These units are as built with 2/3 seating remember though our 150/2s had this style until Wales and West Trains or was it Wessex decided to replace them with the 2/2 Chapman Seats thus reducing the seating capacity, whilst increasing standing room. So perhaps the 150/2 gives a distorted view of an overcrowded train comparied to the two 150/1s we have dog box, thank you for your explanation ^ and I do understand that you are probably just trying to contain my boyish enthusiasm for 150/1s! However, while I was given a rare treat last Friday evening, having a ride home on a 150/1 on the 1753 from BTM to Nailsea, (see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1753.msg12089#msg12089 ) I was brought back to reality with a bump yesterday! A 143 turned up for the 1753 service: not good news, as it^s half term this week and platform 8 was busier than usual. Sure enough, about 30 passengers (that is, me and 29 others!) were left behind, to catch the 1822 instead. My point remains that, compared with the 143 (or even a 150/2?) that we are normally crammed onto for the 1753 service, that 150/1 turning up last Friday was like an early birthday present! ;D Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: Jim on February 20, 2008, 08:19:26 That was 143 Monday night yes, the 150 failed at 10.19 in Bristol.
Title: Re: "Ken Livingstone's Rejects" Post by: devon_metro on February 20, 2008, 09:13:09 143s have even less capacity than a standard 150/2 so must have been murder!
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |