 456 tiolet
On 15 Jul, 14:07, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 10:51, D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 10:30 am, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > 376s have less usable
> > > standing space than even the 465s.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > Under crush load conditions I much prefer a 376 to anything else.
>
> I think the refurbished DLR have got it right for crush loading (after
> an experiment with the worst layout ever a few years ago).
>
> 2 + 2 seating, or longitudinal, or flip-up, set-back areas around the
> doors, things to hold on to, panels to lean on (separating standers
> from seated people's heads), no bulky or sharp obstructions.
>
> I haven't been in a SWT 455 when totally crush-loaded, but it seems to
> me that they follow similar sensible principles
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know I've held that view in uk.railway debates before - possibly
> > even with yourself :o) - but I won't change it.
>
> > --
> > Nick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back to subject.
The 456s are having their toilets removed. The reason apparently is
the Disabled Discrimination Act. There are no additional seats, they
have just moved a group of seats from by the door to where the toilet
was which has freed up space for a wheelchair or cycles.
Pain in the proverbial for us drivers that they have gone, as they
were quite handy if you had a duty without many toilet breaks in them!
| 
