It is ironic that commuters' groups should be complaining about higher fares and overcrowding.
They should have realised this would happen when the slam-door trains were replaced. Instead of joining in the hysteria which led to the old trains being scrapped, the commuters' groups should have countered the hysteria with rational argument.
The safety problem with the doors could have been dealt with at little cost. Given a throrough overhaul, the slam-door trains would have been good for another 20 years and the majority of passengers would not have even have known they were not new trains.
The capital cost of the slam-door trains had long been paid off and, with simple and robust mechanical and electrical systems, they were reliable and inexpensive to keep going.
An additional subsidy now has had to be paid towards the cost of the replacement trains, which use more electricity and have fewer seats.
Thus higher fares and overcrowding were the inevitable result of getting rid of all the slam-door stock.
Should the commuter groups really be complaining about a state of affairs which they did quite to a lot to help bring about?
Henry Law
Queen's Gardens, Brighton
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article