T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
EuanB wrote:
> PeteSig Wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>>>
>>> You want the opposite to user pays then, as in you want other people
>>> (other passengers or the 'public') to pay for the space your bike
>>> takes up on public trains?
>>
>> Yeah Theo, like the big tax concession we all paid for when you
>> bought your
>> 4WD ute
> Bingo.
Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute and it's not 4WD. I don't own
a car I drive. Tax concessions? Geez, when I buy a carton of Coke for the
lunchroom fridge Govco refunds me the GST. I have John Howard to thank for
that.
Theo
Hehe.
> PeteSig Wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>>>
>>> You want the opposite to user pays then, as in you want other people
>>> (other passengers or the 'public') to pay for the space your bike
>>> takes up on public trains?
>>
>> Yeah Theo, like the big tax concession we all paid for when you
>> bought your
>> 4WD ute
> Bingo.
Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute and it's not 4WD. I don't own
a car I drive. Tax concessions? Geez, when I buy a carton of Coke for the
lunchroom fridge Govco refunds me the GST. I have John Howard to thank for
that.
Theo
Hehe.
T
tim
Guest
On Jan 9, 12:46 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm aware of that Peter. Melbourne train carriages have not yet reached the
> double-decker stage due to the good length of station platforms.
By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
is required if two levels are to be used.
> I was
> suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would be very
> problematical
Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats
along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers,
bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward
and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the
areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is
no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these
entry spaces.
Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
tim
> I'm aware of that Peter. Melbourne train carriages have not yet reached the
> double-decker stage due to the good length of station platforms.
By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
is required if two levels are to be used.
> I was
> suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would be very
> problematical
Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats
along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers,
bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward
and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the
areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is
no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these
entry spaces.
Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
tim
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
tim wrote:
> By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
> They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
> they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
> designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
> shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
> is required if two levels are to be used.
OK.
>> I was
>> suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would
>> be very problematical
>
> Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats
> along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers,
> bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and
off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting
a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
> Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward
> and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the
> areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is
> no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these
> entry spaces.
>
> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
> and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt brigade
out in full cry.
Theo
> By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
> They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
> they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
> designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
> shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
> is required if two levels are to be used.
OK.
>> I was
>> suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would
>> be very problematical
>
> Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats
> along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers,
> bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and
off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting
a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
> Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward
> and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the
> areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is
> no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these
> entry spaces.
>
> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
> and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt brigade
out in full cry.
Theo
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:26:38 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and
> off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting
> a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
When I first started commuting, I decided to do some of the trip by
train so I could ease into a long commute.
There was no way the bike was going to fit on a train before 9am, or
before about 6:30pm.
Zebee
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and
> off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting
> a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
When I first started commuting, I decided to do some of the trip by
train so I could ease into a long commute.
There was no way the bike was going to fit on a train before 9am, or
before about 6:30pm.
Zebee
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:49:09 +1100
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>
>> > Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
>> > and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>
>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>> brigade
>> out in full cry.
>
> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
> etc.
Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
Zebee
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>
>> > Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides,
>> > and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>
>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>> brigade
>> out in full cry.
>
> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
> etc.
Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
Zebee
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>
>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>> brigade
>>> out in full cry.
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>> etc.
>
> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
Theo
> EuanB wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>
>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>> brigade
>>> out in full cry.
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>> etc.
>
> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
Theo
P
PeteSig
Guest
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:
> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the case you
still 'own' it.
> and it's not 4WD.
OK. Good on you for steering away from the prevailing trend.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the case you
still 'own' it.
> and it's not 4WD.
OK. Good on you for steering away from the prevailing trend.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
G
G-S
Guest
PeteSig wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
>
> OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the case you
> still 'own' it.
>
I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by
various family members.
That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be
just as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
So yes I am being straight and no I don't own it.
G-S
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
>
> OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the case you
> still 'own' it.
>
I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by
various family members.
That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be
just as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
So yes I am being straight and no I don't own it.
G-S
G
G-S
Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>>> brigade
>>>> out in full cry.
>>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>>> etc.
>> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
>> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
>
> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
> Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
> operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
> parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
>
They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to school
buses but they tried to a while back.
The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and they
back pedalled.
Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
G-S
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>>> brigade
>>>> out in full cry.
>>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>>> etc.
>> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
>> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
>
> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
> Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
> operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
> parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
>
They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to school
buses but they tried to a while back.
The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and they
back pedalled.
Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
G-S
P
PeteSig
Guest
"G-S" wrote:
> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by various
> family members.
>
> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be just
> as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and the rest
of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by various
> family members.
>
> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be just
> as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and the rest
of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
G
G-S
Guest
PeteSig wrote:
> "G-S" wrote:
>
>> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by various
>> family members.
>>
>> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be just
>> as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
>
> You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and the rest
> of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
It's my families company, it's not my company...
I don't get the benefits of the company's profits (not unless/until I
inherit shares anyway), all I get is wages.
Never the less it is 'a family company'.
So again... how is it 'my ute'?
G-S
> "G-S" wrote:
>
>> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by various
>> family members.
>>
>> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still be just
>> as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
>
> You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and the rest
> of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
It's my families company, it's not my company...
I don't get the benefits of the company's profits (not unless/until I
inherit shares anyway), all I get is wages.
Never the less it is 'a family company'.
So again... how is it 'my ute'?
G-S
M
murray
Guest
You are so hypocritical you have storage lockers in the loop stations at
all.You have not addressed or made transaprent your method of gaining data
that appers to besed on your own view point experincees and observations.
You consider a bike to be a car, locked at a station, and returned to, I
bike is far more flexible than a car and can be used outstandingly with a
reilable and friendly train service to service many mulitpse locations
frequemtlu with no parking /congestion hassles throuh the greater area of
zone one.
you have not faced the securing and redelegation of the two or three
drivers compartments on each train, the praxctise of carrrying the cycles
in the rear compartment. All bikes too the back carriage, the greta in
crease in the no of bicycle being used for and relied on for transport the
long term short sitedness in of your outlook in terms of the environment.
Iam sure you will get grease on your suit from your next obsticle.
Verify and demonstrate the with proof that any passanger that has been
refused or unable to
get tranport adequately directly because of a bicycle and not the packing
of the train,
or anyone of a number of factors. I can tell "what you enjoy" from our
phone call: "Its my decision and I am right and everyone else can just
suffer, get your greasy bike away from my suit. I only ride on the
weekends for fun"
What on earth did you do to Bicycle Victoria to get them to advocate your
....?
The people of Victoria know what is right and how far down in quality,
desirability and safety the sububan rail network has gone over the past 15
years. No feeling of well being, no toilets, no customer information so
travellers have to ask other travellrer how to do things. Gestapo style
ticket enforcement and fining.only the beginning.
We will have our day and not the companies.
Vintage wrote:
>
> Well great to see the cut and past job from Connex that didn't address any
> of the concerns I raised with them over the bike ban on trains in peak hour.
>
> Lets me just say that if its dark in the arvo, the rain hits hard, the
> roads are REAL nasty I'm telling the wife to get the train still home with
> her bike instead of riding home that night. We will cop any fine they want
> to throw at us or action taking as its still better than the worst case
> scenario of her on the roads in those conditions. And I trust her skills
> on the road, its just all the other nuts I don't trust and see daily.
>
> I take it when the new trains are here we are allowed back on?
>
> Here is the response about the bike scapegoat issue we are facing.
>
> "Thank you for your feedback to Metlink regarding bikes on trains.
>
> During the last two years, patronage has increased by 23% on Connex train
> services. Patronage is expected to continue to increase and a number of
> steps are being taken to increase the capacity of the train network to
> enable more passengers to be carried.
>
> The Victorian government has recently announced an order for 18 new
> suburban trains and 22 new V/Locity carriages. However, growing patronage
> has meant that a number of difficult operational decisions were required to
> maximise the number of passengers that can be carried on peak hour
> services. It is expected that the removal of bikes from the most congested
> parts of the network during peak hours will enable more passengers to be
> carried, providing significant environmental and community benefits.
>
> The restrictions for bikes are highly targeted and only apply to bikes
> travelling in the peak direction during peak times. For Connex trains, the
> ban only applies to services within Zone 1. Customers will continue to be
> able to travel at off-peak times and in the counter peak direction without
> restrictions. Similar rules exist in other Australian suburban train
> networks, including Brisbane and Perth.
>
> The Victorian Government and the public transport industry strongly support
> the use of public transport in conjunction with cycling and regret the need
> to restrict bikes from peak hour trains. Public transport users are
> encouraged to continue to use bikes in conjunction with public transport by
> leaving their bikes at the station at peak times and taking their bikes on
> trains during off-peak times. (who wants to leave a good bike at a station
> all day, day in day out at the same time each day in most areas?)
>
> Lockers are provided at many Connex and V/Line stations.(Rubbish) Rental
> fees for
> lockers have been eliminated, with only a refundable deposit now required.
> Fees for the carriage of bikes on public transport have been eliminated.
> CCTV coverage at stations reduces the chances of theft. Six carriage trains
> are now operated on the majority of off-peak services, providing more room
> for bikes during the day, at night and on weekends.
>
> The Victorian Government recognises that there is more work to do in
> relation to bicycle storage at stations. The Department of Infrastructure
> is working with Connex and Bicycle Victoria to implement a bike cage
> storage facility at a suburban station as a trial. If successful(100 bikes
> NOT stolen) , more bike
> cages are likely to be implemented.
>
> Thank you for raising this matter with the Public Transport Division.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> Adrian Webb
> Victorian Fare Policy Manager
>
>
>
>
>
--
Posted at www.Usenet.com.au
all.You have not addressed or made transaprent your method of gaining data
that appers to besed on your own view point experincees and observations.
You consider a bike to be a car, locked at a station, and returned to, I
bike is far more flexible than a car and can be used outstandingly with a
reilable and friendly train service to service many mulitpse locations
frequemtlu with no parking /congestion hassles throuh the greater area of
zone one.
you have not faced the securing and redelegation of the two or three
drivers compartments on each train, the praxctise of carrrying the cycles
in the rear compartment. All bikes too the back carriage, the greta in
crease in the no of bicycle being used for and relied on for transport the
long term short sitedness in of your outlook in terms of the environment.
Iam sure you will get grease on your suit from your next obsticle.
Verify and demonstrate the with proof that any passanger that has been
refused or unable to
get tranport adequately directly because of a bicycle and not the packing
of the train,
or anyone of a number of factors. I can tell "what you enjoy" from our
phone call: "Its my decision and I am right and everyone else can just
suffer, get your greasy bike away from my suit. I only ride on the
weekends for fun"
What on earth did you do to Bicycle Victoria to get them to advocate your
....?
The people of Victoria know what is right and how far down in quality,
desirability and safety the sububan rail network has gone over the past 15
years. No feeling of well being, no toilets, no customer information so
travellers have to ask other travellrer how to do things. Gestapo style
ticket enforcement and fining.only the beginning.
We will have our day and not the companies.
Vintage wrote:
>
> Well great to see the cut and past job from Connex that didn't address any
> of the concerns I raised with them over the bike ban on trains in peak hour.
>
> Lets me just say that if its dark in the arvo, the rain hits hard, the
> roads are REAL nasty I'm telling the wife to get the train still home with
> her bike instead of riding home that night. We will cop any fine they want
> to throw at us or action taking as its still better than the worst case
> scenario of her on the roads in those conditions. And I trust her skills
> on the road, its just all the other nuts I don't trust and see daily.
>
> I take it when the new trains are here we are allowed back on?
>
> Here is the response about the bike scapegoat issue we are facing.
>
> "Thank you for your feedback to Metlink regarding bikes on trains.
>
> During the last two years, patronage has increased by 23% on Connex train
> services. Patronage is expected to continue to increase and a number of
> steps are being taken to increase the capacity of the train network to
> enable more passengers to be carried.
>
> The Victorian government has recently announced an order for 18 new
> suburban trains and 22 new V/Locity carriages. However, growing patronage
> has meant that a number of difficult operational decisions were required to
> maximise the number of passengers that can be carried on peak hour
> services. It is expected that the removal of bikes from the most congested
> parts of the network during peak hours will enable more passengers to be
> carried, providing significant environmental and community benefits.
>
> The restrictions for bikes are highly targeted and only apply to bikes
> travelling in the peak direction during peak times. For Connex trains, the
> ban only applies to services within Zone 1. Customers will continue to be
> able to travel at off-peak times and in the counter peak direction without
> restrictions. Similar rules exist in other Australian suburban train
> networks, including Brisbane and Perth.
>
> The Victorian Government and the public transport industry strongly support
> the use of public transport in conjunction with cycling and regret the need
> to restrict bikes from peak hour trains. Public transport users are
> encouraged to continue to use bikes in conjunction with public transport by
> leaving their bikes at the station at peak times and taking their bikes on
> trains during off-peak times. (who wants to leave a good bike at a station
> all day, day in day out at the same time each day in most areas?)
>
> Lockers are provided at many Connex and V/Line stations.(Rubbish) Rental
> fees for
> lockers have been eliminated, with only a refundable deposit now required.
> Fees for the carriage of bikes on public transport have been eliminated.
> CCTV coverage at stations reduces the chances of theft. Six carriage trains
> are now operated on the majority of off-peak services, providing more room
> for bikes during the day, at night and on weekends.
>
> The Victorian Government recognises that there is more work to do in
> relation to bicycle storage at stations. The Department of Infrastructure
> is working with Connex and Bicycle Victoria to implement a bike cage
> storage facility at a suburban station as a trial. If successful(100 bikes
> NOT stolen) , more bike
> cages are likely to be implemented.
>
> Thank you for raising this matter with the Public Transport Division.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> Adrian Webb
> Victorian Fare Policy Manager
>
>
>
>
>
--
Posted at www.Usenet.com.au
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-09, tim (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Jan 9, 12:46 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm aware of that Peter. Melbourne train carriages have not yet reached the
>> double-decker stage due to the good length of station platforms.
>
> By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
> They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
> they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
> designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
> shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
> is required if two levels are to be used.
Heh. The explanations you hear.
I had heard it was because we are more limited by passenger movements
in Melbourne. Sydney trains only have 2 doors, because otherwise
you'd need to add a centre set of stairs. The 2 doors slow down the
loading and offloading of passengers compared to the 3 doors on
Melbourne trains.
--
TimC
Oooh, Look! Shiny New Thing! -- TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Jan 9, 12:46 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm aware of that Peter. Melbourne train carriages have not yet reached the
>> double-decker stage due to the good length of station platforms.
>
> By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track.
> They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but
> they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were
> designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the
> shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as
> is required if two levels are to be used.
Heh. The explanations you hear.
I had heard it was because we are more limited by passenger movements
in Melbourne. Sydney trains only have 2 doors, because otherwise
you'd need to add a centre set of stairs. The 2 doors slow down the
loading and offloading of passengers compared to the 3 doors on
Melbourne trains.
--
TimC
Oooh, Look! Shiny New Thing! -- TimC
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-10, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> EuanB wrote:
>>>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>>>> brigade
>>>>> out in full cry.
>>>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>>>> etc.
>>> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
>>> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
>>
>> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
>> Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
>> operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
>> parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
>
> They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to school
> buses but they tried to a while back.
>
> The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and they
> back pedalled.
>
> Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
Don't stir that hornets nest.
The risk of injury in a bus crash is absolutely miniscule (smaller
than injuries sustained from bike riding), and for the great cost of
belting every seat in every bus, it is most certainly not worth it.
--
TimC
"The thing I love most about deadlines is the wonderful WHOOSHing sound
they make as they go past" - DNA
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> EuanB wrote:
>>>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the
>>>>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt
>>>>> brigade
>>>>> out in full cry.
>>>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc
>>>> etc.
>>> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that
>>> doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
>>
>> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM.
>> Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the
>> operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all
>> parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
>
> They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to school
> buses but they tried to a while back.
>
> The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and they
> back pedalled.
>
> Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
Don't stir that hornets nest.
The risk of injury in a bus crash is absolutely miniscule (smaller
than injuries sustained from bike riding), and for the great cost of
belting every seat in every bus, it is most certainly not worth it.
--
TimC
"The thing I love most about deadlines is the wonderful WHOOSHing sound
they make as they go past" - DNA
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
G-S wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:
>> "G-S" wrote:
>>
>>> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by
>>> various family members.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still
>>> be just as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
>>
>> You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and
>> the rest of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
>
> It's my families company, it's not my company...
>
> I don't get the benefits of the company's profits (not unless/until I
> inherit shares anyway), all I get is wages.
>
> Never the less it is 'a family company'.
>
> So again... how is it 'my ute'?
About the same as the one I drive is my ute.
Theo
> PeteSig wrote:
>> "G-S" wrote:
>>
>>> I drive a company ute. It belongs to a pty. ltd. company owned by
>>> various family members.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it 'my ute' (seriously). If I took it I'd still
>>> be just as guilty of theft as if someone else took it.
>>
>> You get the benefits from it's use (in your company's profits) and
>> the rest of us are subsidising your tax concession, if it's a 4WD.
>
> It's my families company, it's not my company...
>
> I don't get the benefits of the company's profits (not unless/until I
> inherit shares anyway), all I get is wages.
>
> Never the less it is 'a family company'.
>
> So again... how is it 'my ute'?
About the same as the one I drive is my ute.
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
PeteSig wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
>
> OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the
> case you still 'own' it.
>
>> and it's not 4WD.
>
> OK. Good on you for steering away from the prevailing trend.
Why is a 4WD ute so much worse than a 2WD one?
Theo
Was thinking of trading it on a new 4WD diesel version of the same brand
ute.
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute
>
> OK. But your family company? Be straight about it. If this is the
> case you still 'own' it.
>
>> and it's not 4WD.
>
> OK. Good on you for steering away from the prevailing trend.
Why is a 4WD ute so much worse than a 2WD one?
Theo
Was thinking of trading it on a new 4WD diesel version of the same brand
ute.
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
TimC wrote:
> On 2008-01-10, G-S wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West
>>> ATM. Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be
>>> fitted by the operators (at the operator's cost) because it will
>>> set a precedent and all parents will expect school buses to be
>>> fitted with them.
>>
>> They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to
>> school buses but they tried to a while back.
>>
>> The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and
>> they back pedalled.
>>
>> Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
>
> Don't stir that hornets nest.
Why not?
> The risk of injury in a bus crash is absolutely miniscule (smaller
> than injuries sustained from bike riding), and for the great cost of
> belting every seat in every bus, it is most certainly not worth it.
Try this angle then. Aircraft travel is far safer than even a bus, and they
have belts on every seat. In the event of a crash they are of no use at all.
Theo
> On 2008-01-10, G-S wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West
>>> ATM. Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be
>>> fitted by the operators (at the operator's cost) because it will
>>> set a precedent and all parents will expect school buses to be
>>> fitted with them.
>>
>> They aren't actually stopping operators in vic fitting belts to
>> school buses but they tried to a while back.
>>
>> The fact that they were attempting to do so reached the media and
>> they back pedalled.
>>
>> Might be worth a letter to the papers or a call to a TV show...
>
> Don't stir that hornets nest.
Why not?
> The risk of injury in a bus crash is absolutely miniscule (smaller
> than injuries sustained from bike riding), and for the great cost of
> belting every seat in every bus, it is most certainly not worth it.
Try this angle then. Aircraft travel is far safer than even a bus, and they
have belts on every seat. In the event of a crash they are of no use at all.
Theo
