Signatures 1583 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 32 › »
-
151
Name: Simon Owen on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
152
Name: Anonymous on Jan 11, 2007Comments: It is patently obvious that no proper analysis or prototyping of the seating configuration on the 450 trains has ever taken place .. at times it is literally impossible for 3 people to sit on the rows of 3 seats (and I'm not even talking about sitting comfortably), if any of them is over about 9 stone/5ft 7in. People stand rather than try to sit in a one foot wide gap between 2 other passengers - completely negating the claim about extra seating.Flag
-
153
Name: Steve Harper on Jan 11, 2007Comments: Added to all the above is the whopping 19% increase in daily parking at Petersfield. Coming in by motorbike is faster, cheaper and more comfortable. Bye!!Flag
-
154
Name: Anonymous on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Anonymous on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
156
Name: Charlie Habershon on Jan 11, 2007Comments: Commuters are paying higher fares for smaller seats, while the fatcats line their pockets. DisgracefullFlag
-
157
Name: Chris on Jan 11, 2007Comments: To remove the 444' s from the Waterloo to Portsmouth route is madness, having travelled to Hamble on 450's for a while, i found them uncomfortable, cramped and you needed to be prepared to get to know people pretty well.... the lack of tables would be my biggest complaint, how are business people meant to do their work, or students commuting meant to be able to do their work. Bring back the 444's to the route they were intended for! We put up with slam doors for too long, it would now appear commuters are getting another raw deal!Flag
-
158
Name: Niall Greenwood on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
159
Name: Julian Wootton on Jan 11, 2007Comments: These trains services just WON'T DO. Please improve them SWT.Flag
-
160
Name: Nigel Murphy on Jan 11, 2007Comments: A pettiton will not work! SWT will only change something if it is going to COST them money. I.e. they won't listen to a pettion! If you want SWT to change, you must either get them on a health and saffety issue (i.e. goto HSE) or do something more drastic. More drastic My idea would be to stop the portsmouth to waterloo by getting 50+ commuters to stand on a level crossing (after informing SWT) and hold the line up for say 2 hours on a sataday. Keep this up for a few weeks, this will cost SWT and make them listen! A pettion will only fall on deaf ears! I know, I've tried to get SWT to change many times, they only listen when its in their interest!Flag
-
161
Name: Jim Summers on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I have been a season ticket holder between Haslemere and Waterloo for over 20 years. In real terms the cost of travel on this line has never been higher while the degree of service and comfort has never been lower. To propose the introduction of a 'standing short-shuttle suburban commuter train' such as the 450 for a one hour + journey at a cost of over £4,000 per annum is an outrage. If the intention is to cater for increased demand SWT should provide more trains and 444 rolling stock (particularly as I frequently travel on 444's consisting of just 5 cars) rather than play yet another cheap trick on the long suffering public.Flag
-
162
Name: James Hockley on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
163
Name: Adrian Shaw on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
164
Name: Adrian Shaw on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
165
Name: MATTHEW FYFE on Jan 11, 2007Comments: WE PAY A LOT FOR THE TRAIN FROM HAVANT TO LONDON. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT A COMFORTABLE SERVICE.Flag
-
166
Name: Lee Werrell on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I totally support your movement. Will link from my websitesFlag
-
167
Name: Andrew King on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
168
Name: Ian Broadhurst on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I sign in the expectation that the implied exclusion of Guildford users from this otherwise hugely worthy campaign is reversed.Flag
-
169
Name: Peter Graham on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I have had to revert mainly to car use because the cramped new trains cause my dodgy knee distress. I have a senior card and used to travel to Waterloo 2/3 times a week. I regard the loss of a trolley service, the fare increases and the poor trains as unacceptable.Flag
-
170
Name: Alan Bullock on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I am totally appalled by the decision. It shows nothing but contempt for customers who travel to London by train from anywhere in S.E.Hampshire. I am not a regular commuter but travel to London for occasional meetings either from Havant where I work, or Portchester where I live. The 444s have been a pleasure to travel in and I have always looked forward to London trips since their introduction. The 450s are fine for a quick local trip but for a journey to London they are far too uncomfortable and in future I will travel by car to North Hampshire or Surrey and go from there rather than sit for over 100 minutes in a 450. I also occasionally travel by train in Europe and any continental traveller arriving in Portsmouth and travelling to London will get an awful first impression of Britain when a 450 turns up. Having commuted to London in the past, I know what it's like and I feel deeply sorry for regular commuters faced with this change. If it was me I would quite literally move away from the area. South West Trains should be ashamed of themselves. They have admitted they are "bracing themselves" for a barrage of complaints because they know this decision is an insult to its customers.Flag
-
171
Name: Shaun Findley on Jan 11, 2007Comments: Totally unacceptable travelling conditions. South West Trains should be ashamed of themselves.Flag
-
172
Name: Philip Williams on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
173
Name: Anonymous on Jan 11, 2007Comments: Please dont withdraw these trains, we spend many hours a day travelling and spend alot of money, do we not deserve some comfort There is never overcrowding and the 450 is hardly the kind of train that you can spend 3 hours a day on!Flag
-
174
Name: Mark Soutter on Jan 11, 2007Comments: It is not acceptable to replace trains that were designed for the purpose with local suburban trains for longer distance commuters. The position should be rectified. Until it is, commuters should expect a reduction in fares to the same level that was charged before the new white trains were introduced to match the quality of service previously provided.Flag
-
175
Name: Tim Camilleri on Jan 11, 2007Comments: Back ache every time I have to sit for an hour on one of these 450s. Any company that provided this type of seating would be reported to the HSE.Flag
-
176
Name: Chris Tonge on Jan 11, 2007Comments: These 444 trains are so uncomfortable for the length of journey for which they are used. They would be fine for a 20/30 min commute, but for the journey to Rowlands Castle which can take between 1hr 20mins to 1hr 40mins, they are unacceptable. I cannot sit comfortably on those narrow seat for this duration. I sat on one today and there wasn't enough room for the pasenger to sit next to me comfortably. I'm average build at 5'10", God knows what it's like for anyone bigger.Flag
-
177
Name: Gregory Knott on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I have written to SW Trains on this subject already. Great and unnecessary resentment is generated by this replacement programme. Overcrowding on the line is not the issue. As importantly, I question the safety of the 450s, which are of course designed to maximise seating (being designed for short hop commuters) without regard for anything else. Ironically, they are so uncomfortable and badly designed, that when the train is full (for example between Waterloo and the early stops after Waterloo), passengers often opt to stand rather than squeeze into the under-designed seats, where you often can't even get your back into contact with the seat. Thus, in the event of a disaster, I question the 450s ability to provide a sufficient level of safety. The replacement programme should be halted immediately.Flag
-
178
Name: Gregory Knott on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I have written to SW Trains on this subject already. Great and unnecessary resentment is generated by this replacement programme. Overcrowding on the line is not the issue. As importantly, I question the safety of the 450s, which are of course designed to maximise seating (being designed for short hop commuters) without regard for anything else. Ironically, they are so uncomfortable and badly designed, that when the train is full (for example between Waterloo and the early stops after Waterloo), passengers often opt to stand rather than squeeze into the under-designed seats, where you often can't even get your back into contact with the seat. Thus, in the event of a disaster, I question the 450s ability to provide a sufficient level of safety. The replacement programme should be halted immediately.Flag
-
179
Name: Chris Tonge on Jan 11, 2007Comments: These 444 trains are so uncomfortable for the length of journey for which they are used. They would be fine for a 20/30 min commute, but for the journey to Rowlands Castle which can take between 1hr 20mins to 1hr 40mins, they are unacceptable. I cannot sit comfortably on those narrow seat for this duration. I sat on one today and there wasn't enough room for the pasenger to sit next to me comfortably. I'm average build at 5'10", God knows what it's like for anyone bigger.Flag
-
180
Name: Hugh Goodfellow on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
181
Name: Andrew Jjoynson on Jan 11, 2007Comments: I am very dissapointed that SWT can be permitted to phase out comfortable trains for ones with no shoulder room at all. we have a long journey to work on this line and pay a considerable sum each year. Comfort is a very important factor. A bad political & environmental move if it forces people back into their cars!Flag
-
182
Name: John D Jacobs on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
183
Name: John Hugh on Jan 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
184
Name: Richard Phillips on Jan 12, 2007Comments: It is also clear that the extra seating achieves little. There were seats left empty on the 1730 today while people standing nearby chose not to suffer the discomfort of using them.Flag
-
185
Name: Charlie on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
186
Name: Martin Tabard on Jan 12, 2007Comments: The 450 stock should not be used outside the M25. The seats just aren't wide enough, and are less comfortable than the old slam door trains! In fact if you count the number of unoccupied seats (usually the middle of three) because people can't get in it probably adds up to the number of 'extra' seats SWT are promisingFlag
-
187
Name: Anonymous on Jan 12, 2007Comments: I travel fromPortsmouth daily. The 450 class trains ARE a health and safety issue. On the odd occassion in the past that a 450 class train has replaced a 444 class, I find the seats so uncomfortably cramped in both width and pitch that it gives me back ache. At 5ft 11 tall I may be slightly above average height but not hugely so. I strongly support this campaign to restore 444 trains on this LONG DISTANCE route.Flag
-
188
Name: Jodie Tiller on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
189
Name: Martin Loose on Jan 12, 2007Comments: I support your campaign 100%. Back breaking is not the word for travelling on the 450 class trains for over an hour. I my opinion the Portsmouth line should stop playing second fiddle to the Weymouth line and be recognised as the inter city route that it actually is.Flag
-
190
Name: James Hogan on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
191
Name: Laura Dadswell on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
192
Name: Stephen Dadswell on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
193
Name: Francis Jeffcock on Jan 12, 2007Comments: The 450 trains absolutely knacker my back with their appalling seats. Also having spent years getting frozen to death on slam door trains each time the doors open (directly into the carriage) SWT now want to reintroduce the concept - now that's what I call progress!Flag
-
194
Name: Geoffrey Hanna on Jan 12, 2007Comments: I have e-mailed customer relations three times now and received polite but unsatisfactory responses. I've recently started suffering lower back pain for the first time in my life and I know exactly the cause! We must keep the pressure up to reverse this disgraceful decision.Flag
-
195
Name: Louise Mayall on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
196
Name: D Rothwell on Jan 12, 2007Comments: I support the above. When will SWT start to respect their customers, who pay huge sums to travel on SWT's trains. The seats on the 450's are ridiculously narrow - did anyone actually measure the current average human being's shoulder width to realise that people just do not fit into these seatsFlag
-
197
Name: Olivia Naismith on Jan 12, 2007Comments: On the 450 this morning, the middle of the 3 seats was left empty with passengers preferring to stand. So SWT's "solution" of providing extra seats does not washFlag
-
198
Name: Anonymous on Jan 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
199
Name: David Cudbertson on Jan 12, 2007Comments: Keep the trains as they are. You are upsetting customer with price hikes, changing trains.Flag
-
200
Name: Dave Melton on Jan 12, 2007Comments: Removing the 444 rolling stock is a disgrace to SWTFlag