Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways

Graeme

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> quoted "A to B" in
news:aarkt0thjujujlo00tn3ng070tc1l7q5m3@4ax.com:

> "Eurotunnel, it seems, has procedures to keep cyclists
> out of the tunnel."

Reminds me of a Robert Llewellyn book which had some robbery or some such
using bicycles through the tunnel. "Sudden Wealth" I think it was. Pretty
good book.

Graeme

NC

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:15:03 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>
>> Yes. You downplay quite strongly what is actually a pretty good
>> service (By all appearances!).
>
> I simply reported the reported experiences of A to B.


Which may be what they found, but at odds with other reports of the service.



> My "really" was in response to the following two assertions, which I
> have added my responses to:
>
> 1) May or may not have been true at some past event,


Said because I had no indication as to when the reports was made.


> Given the date of the A to B Magazine, the past event was presumably
> sometime in the summer of 2004. Thus it appears to not be in the
> (distant) past as is implied above.


I think the AtoB people must have done something wrong.

The website information hasn't changed significantly for quite a long time,
though I couldn't say when I read it for the first time - certainly well
before summer 2004.

A journalist from the Independent's travel section had no problem with the
service in/before June 2004:
http://travel.independent.co.uk/the...sp?story=531223

And the tandem club website shows people using it in 2002 and 2003
http://www.tandem-club.org.uk/cgi-b...rames;read=2793


> 2) a misrepresentation of the service offered to cycling passengers
> by Eurotunnel.
>
> The service was offered to journalists by Eurotunnel, presumably as
> a means of boosting usage when they wrote articles about it.
> Therefore it would have been useful for them to clarify where to go
> with the journalists, before they could write, "Those wishing to
> take advantage of the Eurotunnel Cycle Service might wish to note
> that the closest railway station is Folkstone West, not Central as
> printed in the press-pack,

A fair point, though the difference is under a mile, which I wouldn't have
thought to be a serious inconvinience for someone taking their bike to
France.
I don't know which station would have the most trains, or if one is staffed
and the other unmanned, etc..

> and that the cyclist's rendezvous
> point
> is not the terminal at all, but south of the M20 near the Folkstone
> branch of Tesco's. One trusts this information will spare other
> cyclists the ordeal of joining the M20 motorway for the final
> approach to the terminal .........

Which means either some very strange cycling decisions, such as illegally
cycling on a motorway, or a bit of journalistic license.
The OS map of the tunnel entrance shows that it would be possible to get to
the approach road to the tunnel buildings without going on the motorway.
However, I expect that road to the tunnel buildings would operate at
motorway-like speeds, and be built to motorway-like construction.
I wouldn't suggest anyone would choose to cycle on those roads.


> and being apprehended by security
> guards on
> the premises. Eurotunnel, it seems, has procedures to keep cyclists
> out of the tunnel."

Presumably because the tunnel security is designed around approach by either
motorised vehicle or train. As the advice is to board a transit bus
elsewhere, this seems not totally surprising to me.

It might be a bit stupid, as there isn't that big a difference between a
small moped (which is treated as a motorvehicle by Eurotunnel) and a cycle,
but that's the way it is.


> I note that nobody has contradicted the point I made originally,
> "Being an example of Thatcherism the Eurotunnel terminal is not
> accessible by the public, except via a motorway.", which is the main
> fact that one should consider.

Its a statement of history.
The iron-lady left office over a dozen years ago, and I was delighted when
she went. We've had nearly 8 years of a (New) Labour government.

The legacy is a Tunnel infrastructure built a particular way, together with
contracts, treaties and law governing their use (such as foot passengers are
exclusively the province of Eurostar). No doubt there are also safety
implications for any changes, or the works required for implementing
changes.

One can choose to use what's there, or choose to avoid it. My preference
would be to use the tunnel in preference to adding to the environmental
damage of air travel, but that's my personal choice.


> I'll add one last thought from A to B. "In the event, the riding
> through part turned out to mean putting one's bicycle onboard a
> trailer and travelling by minibus within a train, which sounds like
> rather more hardware than is strictly necessary, but there we are."
> It is a sentiment which I agree with. The Channel Tunnel was not
> designed with the needs of cyclists and pedestrians in mind, a
> common failing in past decades.

Undoubtedly the case. However, there is a cycle provision, those who use it
report it works, with the sole exception of AtoB.

So, the choice is either to use a facility which makes use of a system built
for motor vehicles but with some provision for pedal cycles, or use another
transport method.



- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

David Hansen

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:23:48 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>> "Ordinary" trains
>> are a something of a nuisance to the rolling motorway operation.
>
>Yet the Eurostar service has priority access according to Le Shuttle
>(last time I looked into this).

These would presumably be the same Eurostar trains whose speed
through the tunnel is restricted so that more car carrying trains
can be put through the tunnel.

>There is a good justification for having security for the tunnel as it
>is and will always be a good target for terrorism.

All a terrorist has to do is stand beside the lineside somewhere
between London and Paris, armed with a suitable gun to fire into the
side of the train as it passes. All the so-called security claptrap
at the tunnel will do nothing to prevent this.

>Boycotting a service is all very well, but you must ensure that the
>providers of that service know that you are doing so!

They should do.

>If the plans had
>gone to schedule (Would have involved a significant level of work on the
>railway) then I would be able to get on a train in Edinburgh and get off
>in Paris.

It would have involved very little work. Indeed the Eurostar trains
can run from London to Leeds or York at the moment, they do so every
day. It is only north of there that the work to make the line ready
was not completed.

Of course travelling 400 miles by train to London gives terrorists
400 miles to attack you. Does this ever influence your decision?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:31:57 -0000 someone who may be "NC"
<me@privacy.net> wrote this:-

>The iron-lady left office over a dozen years ago,

And Mr Liar has said that he admires her, which is perhaps why we
again have an out of control road building programme.

>One can choose to use what's there, or choose to avoid it. My preference
>would be to use the tunnel in preference to adding to the environmental
>damage of air travel, but that's my personal choice.

There are also ships.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> These would presumably be the same Eurostar trains whose speed
> through the tunnel is restricted so that more car carrying trains
> can be put through the tunnel.

How would "restricting" their speed have any effect on the throughput of
"car" trains? Eurostar quote (And achieve apparently) the same 35 min
time through the tunnel as Le Shuttle.

> All a terrorist has to do is stand beside the lineside somewhere
> between London and Paris, armed with a suitable gun to fire into the
> side of the train as it passes. All the so-called security claptrap
> at the tunnel will do nothing to prevent this.

Obvious, but untried so far. However while damaging, it would not
generate the same level of fear / publicity as detonating something
inside the tunnel, even though that would probably do less harm. The
most obvious effect of 11/9 was to make people afraid to fly, not afraid
to work in tall buildings!

> It would have involved very little work. Indeed the Eurostar trains
> can run from London to Leeds or York at the moment, they do so every
> day. It is only north of there that the work to make the line ready
> was not completed.

York - Edinburgh = ~200 miles. The original plans had suggested
completion of this service long before now. Having ridden the White Rose
as far as York (Just to see what it was like), I'd dearly love to see
them here. Given our ability to run a railway in this country though, I
doubt I will.

> Of course travelling 400 miles by train to London gives terrorists
> 400 miles to attack you. Does this ever influence your decision?

The point is not to attack "you", but to attack "something". In this
case, the tunnel. The IRA had a relatively low success rate with regard
to mortality, but managed to scare a large proportion of the population.
A bomb in the tunnel would have a far greater PR impact than a bomb on a
train somewhere in Kent!

I think that boycotting one of the few successful (Runs on time, does
what it claims to do!) railway schemes in Britain on the grounds that
the design decisions made by a rabid wench nearly 20 years ago didn't
cater for cyclists achieves little. Making use of the cycle service
(while offering constructive advice on how it could be improved) will
encourage Le Shuttle to further it. Stomping your feet on the sidelines
is more likely to result in a withdrawal of service due to non-usage.

£32 for an open return on a 35minute crossing in all weather... pretty
bloody good deal as far as I can see.

Jon

Simon Brooke

in message <1105056701.10845.0@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net>, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> The point is not to attack "you", but to attack "something". In this
> case, the tunnel. The IRA had a relatively low success rate with
> regard to mortality, but managed to scare a large proportion of the
> population.

The IRA (like many terrorist organisations) were not setting out to kill
people per se, but to effect political change. If they could create the
same amount of political movement with fewer deaths it's my impression
that that was fine by them. I'm not being an apologist for the IRA here
- they were pretty blase about other people's suffering.

I agree, however, that a bomb which causes extensive damage to a tunnel
causing it to be closed for months has a bigger propaganda effect than
killing passengers on a train.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

David Hansen

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:17:19 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>> These would presumably be the same Eurostar trains whose speed
>> through the tunnel is restricted so that more car carrying trains
>> can be put through the tunnel.
>
>How would "restricting" their speed have any effect on the throughput of
>"car" trains? Eurostar quote (And achieve apparently) the same 35 min
>time through the tunnel as Le Shuttle.

You miss the point. Eurostar trains could run through this tunnel at
full speed. However, in order not to disturb the flow of car
carrying trains they are restricted to little more than half speed
through this tunnel.

>> All a terrorist has to do is stand beside the lineside somewhere
>> between London and Paris, armed with a suitable gun to fire into the
>> side of the train as it passes. All the so-called security claptrap
>> at the tunnel will do nothing to prevent this.
>
>Obvious, but untried so far. However while damaging, it would not
>generate the same level of fear / publicity as detonating something
>inside the tunnel,

So you assert.

>> Of course travelling 400 miles by train to London gives terrorists
>> 400 miles to attack you. Does this ever influence your decision?
>
>The point is not to attack "you", but to attack "something".

Then why (appear to) bother about being attacked on one part of the
line between London and Paris?

>A bomb in the tunnel would have a far greater PR impact than a bomb on a
>train somewhere in Kent!

So you assert. However, like Michael Meacher and his successors this
is just an assertion.

>I think that boycotting one of the few successful (Runs on time, does
>what it claims to do!) railway schemes in Britain on the grounds that
>the design decisions made by a rabid wench nearly 20 years ago didn't
>cater for cyclists

Nice try. However, don't give up the day job in order to take up
mind reading.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> You miss the point. Eurostar trains could run through this tunnel at
> full speed. However, in order not to disturb the flow of car
> carrying trains they are restricted to little more than half speed
> through this tunnel.

I can't see the point. The only time that a Eurostar could cause
problems by going faster through the tunnel would be if it would catch
up with a "motor" train already in the tunnel. Otherwise, it'll spend
less time in the tunnel and thus allow more trains through. Is the
overall system capable of 186mph through the tunnel? Is the aerodynamic
design of the tunnel sufficient?

And the 32miles below ground are a small proportion of London - Paris, a
greater proportion of which is the 100mph restriction from London -
Folkstone (50mph through the capital).

>>Obvious, but untried so far. However while damaging, it would not
>>generate the same level of fear / publicity as detonating something
>>inside the tunnel,
>
> So you assert.

An assertion that I stand by. Blowing up a plane (Happens every know and
again) has little effect on flying habits overall. Flying two into the
WTC downed planes for a long time and had a crippling effect on the air
industry. Bin Laden (If you believe 'twas him!) had not chosen the WTC
for the number of people in it (Far easier targets than that), but for
what it symbolised. By attacking a symbol, you can have a far more
reaching effect. One of the turning points in public opinion of GW2 was
the tearing down of a statue of Saddam. Hardly significant against the
backdrop of the rest of the war, but hugely symbolic.

Raking a train with bullets as it passed (Possibly not as effective as
you might imagine) would be less symbolic than a bomb detonated inside
the tunnel which would keep the tunnel high profile for a while.

> Then why (appear to) bother about being attacked on one part of the
> line between London and Paris?

Because there is a tunnel there which would make a highly symbolic
target. DKUATB ;-)

> So you assert. However, like Michael Meacher and his successors this
> is just an assertion.

One which is in some way supported by history, and a sketchy
understanding of human nature. I remember the fuss that was kicked up
over the combination of faults that allowed a fire on a freight train to
burn in the tunnel, closing one tube for around 2 weeks. Considering
there were no casualties and damage was minimal, the media frenzy was
enormous. I had people asking me whether I'd feel safe to go through the
tunnel again (They were already scared of it!). The same people are
unconcerned about boarding a train, despite a spate (For the railways)
of high profile accidents.

> Nice try. However, don't give up the day job in order to take up
> mind reading.

Then justify it properly. You may not intend to, but you come across as
someone who is looking for excuses to dislike the tunnel. Your
complaints boil down to a infrastructure hangover from a previous
government. How exactly will boycotting it help?

And with regard to using ships to cross the channel. Trains are faster,
and potentially cleaner since the electricity can (Although probably
isn't) be generated from green sources such as wind farms while ships,
IIRC, require considerable quantities of diesel to make them move.

Jon

David Hansen

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:10:18 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>The only time that a Eurostar could cause
>problems by going faster through the tunnel would be if it would catch
>up with a "motor" train already in the tunnel.

Precisely.

>Is the
>overall system capable of 186mph through the tunnel? Is the aerodynamic
>design of the tunnel sufficient?

For a Eurostar I see no aerodynamic difficulty. There might be one
of vertical profile, but that was designed with regard to limited
speeds in the tunnel.

The much larger motor vehicle trains could not run at that speed
through the tunnel. This is partly due to the piston effect, but
also due to journey time and energy consumption considerations.

>And the 32miles below ground are a small proportion of London - Paris, a
>greater proportion of which is the 100mph restriction from London -
>Folkstone (50mph through the capital).

The fist half of the high speed line is already open. Had the tunnel
been built as a railway tunnel then, like in France, the high speed
line would have been ready at the same time.

>Flying two into the
>WTC downed planes for a long time and had a crippling effect on the air
>industry.

If the aeroplane industry is crippled why do I see aeroplanes at
Edinburgh Airport whenever I pass it?

>One of the turning points in public opinion of GW2 was
>the tearing down of a statue of Saddam. Hardly significant against the
>backdrop of the rest of the war, but hugely symbolic.

Was it? Where? I noted no change in UK public opinion, even before
the truth about that little bit of spin emerged.

>Raking a train with bullets as it passed (Possibly not as effective as
>you might imagine)

Depends on the guns used. It is perfectly possible to kill more
people with such an attack than with bombs.

>would be less symbolic than a bomb detonated inside
>the tunnel

So you assert.

>I remember the fuss that was kicked up
>over the combination of faults that allowed a fire on a freight train to
>burn in the tunnel, closing one tube for around 2 weeks.

There was a fuss for a time. However, it did not last particularly
long.

>Then justify it properly. You may not intend to, but you come across as
>someone who is looking for excuses to dislike the tunnel.

The assertion was "I think that boycotting one of the few successful
(Runs on time, does what it claims to do!) railway schemes in
Britain on the grounds that the design decisions made by a rabid
wench nearly 20 years ago didn't cater for cyclists".

The claim that this is due to the fact that it "didn't cater for
cyclists" is where you go from discussion into mind reading. Mind
reading that is incorrect.

>Your
>complaints boil down to a infrastructure hangover from a previous
>government.

Incorrect. It would be easy enough to sort this out, given the will.

Anyway, I see little or no difference between then and now as far as
transport policy is concerned.

>How exactly will boycotting it help?

Did I claim anywhere that anything I do will have any effect on this
matter?

I will however, continue to discuss the issues.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
>>The only time that a Eurostar could cause
>>problems by going faster through the tunnel would be if it would catch
>>up with a "motor" train already in the tunnel.
>
> Precisely.

So this is a "problem" that could probably be solved by a minor
scheduling adjustment to Eurostar services without having any impact on
the motor service.

> For a Eurostar I see no aerodynamic difficulty. There might be one
> of vertical profile, but that was designed with regard to limited
> speeds in the tunnel.
>
> The much larger motor vehicle trains could not run at that speed
> through the tunnel. This is partly due to the piston effect, but
> also due to journey time and energy consumption considerations.

The reference to aerodynamics was with regard to stability in the
tunnel. There are some interesting air pressure interactions going on
when travelling at those sorts of speeds in a confined space.

> The fist half of the high speed line is already open. Had the tunnel
> been built as a railway tunnel then, like in France, the high speed
> line would have been ready at the same time.

So you assert! ;-)

> If the aeroplane industry is crippled why do I see aeroplanes at
> Edinburgh Airport whenever I pass it?

Most of the major players saw a quite significant downturn in usage
immediately following 11/9. This was in part due to the restriction of
flights in / to the USA (Closing stable door after the horse has
bolted?). There was also a change in many flight plans to prevent
aircraft from passing over major population centres (Not entirely sure
what this might have achieved... seems to have been abandoned now!). I
appreciate that the industry talked this one up a lot, but the effect
was still there.

> Was it? Where? I noted no change in UK public opinion, even before
> the truth about that little bit of spin emerged.

Where did I mention UK opinion? Besides, that image was appearing on the
covers of newspapers for more than a few days. It was a powerful image
to be used against those who claimed that the regime could not be
toppled by force.

Do you really believe that facts concern people more than symbols? Did
Hitler (I know... Godwin!) really convince a significant number of
people that the Jews were a problem through providing accurate facts and
figures, or was it symbolic imagery and propaganda?

Fact: Cycling is safer than many other forms of transport.
Public opinion: Cycling is dangerous and cyclists should wear a foam hat
to protect them.
Imagery: The berieved parents tearfully describing how a hat could have
saved their child from the collision with a car.

I believe the traditional maxim is "A picture speaks a thousand words".

> Depends on the guns used. It is perfectly possible to kill more
> people with such an attack than with bombs.

And again you assume that the number killed is the most important
aspect. What matters is that you have a major impact on public confidence.

> There was a fuss for a time. However, it did not last particularly
> long.

Among many people I know, it lasted as long as, or longer than the
repairs to the tunnel. It was certainly out of proportion to the
significance of the event.

> The assertion was "I think that boycotting one of the few successful
> (Runs on time, does what it claims to do!) railway schemes in
> Britain on the grounds that the design decisions made by a rabid
> wench nearly 20 years ago didn't cater for cyclists".
>
> The claim that this is due to the fact that it "didn't cater for
> cyclists" is where you go from discussion into mind reading. Mind
> reading that is incorrect.

So rather criticising me for misinterpreting your comments, explain what
your actual reasons are. So far you are coming across as a petulant child.

> Incorrect. It would be easy enough to sort this out, given the will.

Or the incentive.

> Anyway, I see little or no difference between then and now as far as
> transport policy is concerned.

I don't know. The Tories were basing their strategy on philosophical
principles (Trust in capitalism). New Labour are basing them on prior
success (Despite a lack of successes)! ;-)

> Did I claim anywhere that anything I do will have any effect on this
> matter?

If not, then I'd love to understand your reasoning. Even stamping your
feet and waving your arms will have more of an effect than ignoring
something altogether.

> I will however, continue to discuss the issues.

Which are:

1) The motor rail service doesn't cater for non-motorised users (Except
through a scheme whereby a motor service is provided).
2) The passenger service is speed limited in the tunnel through
(possibly) scheduling constraints imposed by the motor service (Although
I've not seen any evidence for this when using the Chunnel. We've been
delayed before due to the arrival of a Eurostar!).
3) Through neglect before and after privatisation, we have a rail
network that cannot support the quality of service that Eurostar can
offer in the rest of Europe.

What would you change and how would you suggest going about it? What
actions would you suggest for current (and future) users of the system
to take, that might help bring about the desired changes.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:26:40 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>So this is a "problem" that could probably be solved by a minor
>scheduling adjustment to Eurostar services without having any impact on
>the motor service.

Incorrect. Line capacity is maximised by minimising the speed band.
Eurostar trains have very tight paths, more than a few minutes out
and a motor vehicle train will be let out, delaying the Eurostar
train as it accelerates.

Freight trains tend to run at night to avoid widening the speed band
even more.

>The reference to aerodynamics was with regard to stability in the
>tunnel. There are some interesting air pressure interactions going on
>when travelling at those sorts of speeds in a confined space.

No problem at all, due to the size of the tunnel.

>Most of the major players saw a quite significant downturn in usage
>immediately following 11/9. This was in part due to the restriction of
>flights in / to the USA (Closing stable door after the horse has
>bolted?). There was also a change in many flight plans to prevent
>aircraft from passing over major population centres (Not entirely sure
>what this might have achieved... seems to have been abandoned now!).

Own goals.

>I appreciate that the industry talked this one up a lot,

Of course they did and as a result got a lot of government subsidies
ISTR. They still talk this up as one of their standard range of
excuses/reasons.

>but the effect was still there.

The questions are what any effect was, how big any effect was and
how long any effect lasted for.

>Do you really believe that facts concern people more than symbols?

That tends to depend on the people and the length of the time one is
considering. People can only be fooled for so long. So-called
security claptrap may be able to fool people for some years to come,
but eventually people will see that the emperor has no clothes.

>And again you assume that the number killed is the most important
>aspect. What matters is that you have a major impact on public confidence.

Not necessarily. However, the number of deaths does have an impact
on public confidence.

>> The claim that this is due to the fact that it "didn't cater for
>> cyclists" is where you go from discussion into mind reading. Mind
>> reading that is incorrect.
>
>So rather criticising me for misinterpreting your comments, explain what
>your actual reasons are.

In a nutshell this so-called security claptrap has had a bad effect
on the tunnel, affecting services. There should be no difference
between going through the Channel Tunnel, the Severn Tunnel or the
tunnel between Morden and East Finchley via Bank. The second one was
the longest underwater tunnel in the world for a long time, the
latter was the longest tunnel in the world for somewhat less time.

As a result of this so-called security claptrap rail has been
disadvantaged, which is undoubtedly why it was insisted upon. Two
examples of this disadvantage is the lack of local services and the
lack of uptake of freight services (for reasons I outlined in this
or another thread recently).

>So far you are coming across as a petulant child.

Excellent. However, spoon-feeding is not something I indulge in too
often. The archives of uk.railway are available for basic knowledge.

>1) The motor rail service doesn't cater for non-motorised users (Except
>through a scheme whereby a motor service is provided).

The problem is that no service through this tunnel caters adequately
for cycles. Salami slicing them avoids this main point.

>What would you change and how would you suggest going about it? What
>actions would you suggest for current (and future) users of the system
>to take, that might help bring about the desired changes.

Questions that do not have simple answers and not ones I will
discuss here. See uk.railway.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:43:21 +0000 someone who may be David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote this:-

>Questions that do not have simple answers and not ones I will
>discuss here. See uk.railway.

Oops, I forgot to add that
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-i...ycles+on+trains
is a good starting point for the subject of cycles on trains, which
is an appropriate subject for this group.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> That tends to depend on the people and the length of the time one is
> considering. People can only be fooled for so long. So-called
> security claptrap may be able to fool people for some years to come,
> but eventually people will see that the emperor has no clothes.

For someone as cynical as you are, you have remarkable faith in human
nature. The prevalence of a number of misplaced beliefs, including (but
not limited to) the efficacy of cycle helmets, the infallibility of holy
texts, the higher importance of security over personal rights would
suggest that eventually, people will go to the emperor's tailor!

> In a nutshell this so-called security claptrap has had a bad effect
> on the tunnel, affecting services. There should be no difference
> between going through the Channel Tunnel, the Severn Tunnel or the
> tunnel between Morden and East Finchley via Bank. The second one was
> the longest underwater tunnel in the world for a long time, the
> latter was the longest tunnel in the world for somewhat less time.

But the security is unchanged since the tunnel opened (I know... I've
been using it since then!). It hasn't "affected" services except in an
abstract, they could be better.

> As a result of this so-called security claptrap rail has been
> disadvantaged, which is undoubtedly why it was insisted upon. Two
> examples of this disadvantage is the lack of local services and the
> lack of uptake of freight services (for reasons I outlined in this
> or another thread recently).

At which point you mentioned that the restrictions on freight already on
rail have now been removed. AFAIK customs can still easily search
lorries driven onto the trains, but do not have the systems in place to
do the same for existing rail freight. I would suggest that the lack of
freight uptake is more strongly related to the general lack of rail
freight in this country.

> Excellent. However, spoon-feeding is not something I indulge in too
> often. The archives of uk.railway are available for basic knowledge.

Or hand-waving by another name. It's one thing to ask people to do
research, but something else to refer people to answers that you may
have given elsewhere, that may be related to the subject matter at hand.
Since pretty much everything you have said has undoubtedly been said
before somewhere online, which not adopt this approach for all content,
rather than when pressed for detail?

> The problem is that no service through this tunnel caters adequately
> for cycles. Salami slicing them avoids this main point.

FSVO "adequate". By your definition, it would seem that adequate would
be nothing short of a ride on / ride off service on any train without
warning. To my mind, a service provided by a motor-vehicle transport
system that allows cyclists to make use of the service, seems
"adequate". Not fantastic. Not perfect. But certainly adequate.

> Questions that do not have simple answers and not ones I will
> discuss here. See uk.railway.

Why? _You_ started the criticism of the current system. _You_ have bad
mouthed the (small) concessions that they currently make to cyclists.
Now _you_ are ignoring the opportunity to show why _your_ solutions are
better. If they are worth reading, then they are worth reading here as
this audience should be aware of what they need to suggest to Le Shuttle
in the comment forms. If they are not worth reading however...

Jon

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>4 in 2003? Or was it 5? Too many for what should be a pretty safe sport.
>
>Are you really defending running TT's on the A1 and the like?
>
>Arthur
>

Of course the figures in 2003 were too high - *any* death is one too many,
however, Arthur, in some 180000 TT rides per year, even 5 deaths is less than
0.003% so in reality it isn't a *lot* of deaths - it's a few. Each one is one
too many, but to say it's a lot of deaths is a misuse of statistics as flagrant
as BHIT and helmets

And as for running TTs on dual carriageways, there are *more* accidents on
single carriageways than on dual carriageways. In 2004, out of a total of 57
accidents nationally, 12 were on dual carriageways, 38 on single carriageways
and 7 unspecified, and of the 57, 20 involved motorvehicles. And not a single
fatiality in 2004 - so hardly a lot of deaths...

For what it's worth, I think each course needs to be assessed on an individual
basis.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--