Travelogue (long and rambling)

GreatWesternSean wrote:

> The problem for me with pendolinos is the obvious connection to
> aircrafts. I never think of being on a train when i board them, i feel
> like ive boarded a plane.

That one's interesting, as many planes (except very small ones) seem to
have more space, more shoulder room and a window view at more or less
every seat.

Malaysia Airlines (this weekend's trip) should definitely be commended
on their superb economy class[1] in their 777. Like flying should be,
and there are many good reasons why long-distance train travel should
be better.

[1] You don't often see those words together, but having flown business
with them two weeks ago (which was even better - but this trip was out
of my own pocket and that one wasn't) quite a number of the features of
business class, including good quality food and proper cutlery, made it
into economy, and legroom was rather good, as was seat width. BA
long-haul economy is bloody awful in comparison, hence why I avoid them
like the plague.

Neil

In message <1168832947.612023.10550@l53g2000cwa.. com>, at
19:49:07 on Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Neil Williams <pacer142@>
remarked:
>Malaysia Airlines (this weekend's trip) should definitely be commended
>on their superb economy class[1] in their 777. Like flying should be,
>and there are many good reasons why long-distance train travel should
>be better.

I've flow a few 777s, from different airlines (it's the plane type which
matters most), and also Airbus 330's.

Both are streets ahead of the older wide body planes.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> I've flow a few 777s, from different airlines (it's the plane type which
> matters most), and also Airbus 330's.
>
> Both are streets ahead of the older wide body planes.

Agreed. I look forward to the 787 - I think it'll be a fantastic plane
based on what's being said about it. It's only a shame that airlines
are ordering more seats instead of giving the extra width. Huge
windows, as well (are you listening, VT?)

I believe there's also an airline that got 10 across (3-4-3) in a 777,
instead of the usual 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. Their management should be shot
at dawn.

That said, the 767 (in its American guise, anyway) is a decent plane as
well - still had plenty of legroom in economy, and it feels a bit less
huge than other wide-body planes. And as for the 747 - sitting
upstairs is quite nice[1], but it looks and feels like the 1960s design
it is. The A380 will be an interesting comparison, and it's a real
shame it was late as I'd definitely have arranged to make sure I got a
trip on one over to Malaysia if it had been ready, even if it'd have
involved going out of my way a bit (had it been on time, going on
Singapore Airlines from LHR via Singapore would most probably have
turned one up).

[1] Feels very odd in turbulence, though - the feeling given is that
the nose is nodding, though I expect it's actually the floor that is
distorting a bit.

Neil

John B wrote:

> In any case, given how much more likely you are to die in a car per
> 100km than a train, crush-loading trains is still far less risky
> overall than throwing some people off to travel by a less safe mode.

As indeed it would have been safer to allow us to continue a few weeks
ago on the train from Barmouth to Machynlleth with the door-brake
interlock overridden, but instead, due to "the rules", we were turfed
off and forced to wait for a rather badly-driven bus instead, or gone
to the pub and waited for the last train as many others ended up doing.

Far "safer", or not as the case may be.

Neil

>
> Far "safer", or not as the case may be.
>

The latest stats I've seen suggest rail is fifteen times safer than
road.

However the road statistics include bus journeys. The humble bus (the
sort that rarely gets much above thirty and stops every few hundred
yards i.e. not a long distance coach) is actually very safe, comparable
to rail, so when bus statistics are taken out rail is more like twenty
times safer than say a car.

In article <1168876558.234283@leri.aber.ac.uk>,
azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

> In article <1168869646.528108.291290@s34g2000cwa. .com>,
> Neil Williams <pacer142@> wrote:
> >Roland Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I've flow a few 777s, from different airlines (it's the plane type which
> >> matters most), and also Airbus 330's.
> >>
> >> Both are streets ahead of the older wide body planes.
> >
> >Agreed. I look forward to the 787 - I think it'll be a fantastic plane
> >based on what's being said about it. It's only a shame that airlines
> >are ordering more seats instead of giving the extra width. Huge
> >windows, as well (are you listening, VT?)
>
> Surely VT operate trains with some of the largest windows around today?
> Voyagers have particularly big windows. I'd not be that happy flying very
> high in anything which had windows that size, as the
> pressurisation/fatigue cycle issues are going to be - interesting.

Boeing have made a thing about the size of the Dreamliner's windows in
their publicity. Unfortunately the 787 web site isn't playing at the
moment so I can't provide a reference.

Sam

In article <1168876558.234283@leri.aber.ac.uk>,
azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

> In article <1168869646.528108.291290@s34g2000cwa. .com>,
> Neil Williams <pacer142@> wrote:
> >Roland Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I've flow a few 777s, from different airlines (it's the plane type which
> >> matters most), and also Airbus 330's.
> >>
> >> Both are streets ahead of the older wide body planes.
> >
> >Agreed. I look forward to the 787 - I think it'll be a fantastic plane
> >based on what's being said about it. It's only a shame that airlines
> >are ordering more seats instead of giving the extra width. Huge
> >windows, as well (are you listening, VT?)
>
> Surely VT operate trains with some of the largest windows around today?
> Voyagers have particularly big windows. I'd not be that happy flying very
> high in anything which had windows that size, as the
> pressurisation/fatigue cycle issues are going to be - interesting.

Ah - tbbe Boeing site has woken up. Have a look at
<http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/gallery/k63450-04.html> and
other images linked from
<http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/gallery/index.html>

Sam

"Neil Williams" <pacer142@> wrote in message
news:1168869646.528108.291290@s34g2000cwa. o...
>
> I believe there's also an airline that got 10 across (3-4-3) in a 777,
> instead of the usual 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. Their management should be shot
> at dawn.
>
> That said, the 767 (in its American guise, anyway) is a decent plane as
> well - still had plenty of legroom in economy, and it feels a bit less
> huge than other wide-body planes.

Standard for what in the US is called coach is 2-3-2 on a 767, but I suspect
you've never had to suffer a Britannia charter one (presumably these have
now been reliveried under the Thomson name). They manage 2-4-2 and it's not
pleasant.

--
Tim

"The trouble with radicals is that they only read radical literature, and
the trouble with conservatives is that they don't read anything" - Thomas
Nixon Carver

In article <511r4vF1i6r77U2@mid.>,
"Tim Fenton" <timfenton@> wrote:

> "Neil Williams" <pacer142@> wrote in message
> news:1168869646.528108.291290@s34g2000cwa. o...
> >
> > I believe there's also an airline that got 10 across (3-4-3) in a 777,
> > instead of the usual 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. Their management should be shot
> > at dawn.
> >
> > That said, the 767 (in its American guise, anyway) is a decent plane as
> > well - still had plenty of legroom in economy, and it feels a bit less
> > huge than other wide-body planes.
>
> Standard for what in the US is called coach is 2-3-2 on a 767, but I suspect
> you've never had to suffer a Britannia charter one (presumably these have
> now been reliveried under the Thomson name). They manage 2-4-2 and it's not
> pleasant.

Ouch. Of the planes I've ridden in - always in economy - BA 767s have
been the most comfortable with British European BAe 146s (on an Air
France flight number) a runner up.

Sam

Tony Polson wrote:

> You should thank Him Upstairs that they are cramming in as many seats
> as practicable, because that means less flights overall and less CO2
> emitted per passenger.

Not really; being quite tall there's a limit to what I can fit in, and
BA 747 economy is inhuman for 12 hour trips.

Neil