South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'... - Page 4

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:21:38 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<$firstname+n$@gmail.com> wrote in message
<2la58iFaig81U1@uni-berlin.de>:

>> Would not work in many areas due to loading gauge
>> constraints.
>Well snipped there, that man!

Well, I wasn't referring to the existing gauge, I was
talking about places where the gauge is constrained by route
or whatever. But I don't think I was thinking very clearly
as the things I had in mind were long tunnels and the like,
which of course /could/ be re-engineered, it would just be
expensive.

Put it down to the external constraints on loading gauge
imposed by pipes to the hot water header :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

In message <slrnceu17n.11q.ian@phlegethon.smithnet>, Ian
Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes

> So far as I can tell, I am allowed to take a double
> mattress with me onto a peak hours SWT train...

It might make for a more comfortable journey, but the
steering's rubbish. And add 50 per cent to your onward
journey time at the other end.

--
congokid Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

David Hansen wrote:

>
> If you are serious about such arguments then seats take up
> valuable space that could be used for a greater number of
> standing passengers. One of the reasons that "modern"
> trains convey fewer people in peak hours is the loss of
> standing room in the guards vans.

Some of our trains have folding seats (bench-type, along the
sides of the carriage) that are kept raised during rush hour
so as to pack in the sardines most effficiently.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

David Hansen wrote:

> A pram takes up even more space, as does a large case. Why
> is it that only cycles that are being picked on and what
> does this tell us?

A pram can not be left at the station and is *needed* if
you have a baby. Totally different to a cycle. Large cases
I agree with, there should be some excess charge if they
are left in aisles (or on seats!) and not put in luggage
racks. If they are in the luggage racks, then no problem,
just as if you'd used a fold up bike and put it in there,
no problem.

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't
you think?

TheMole wrote:

> But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't
> you think?

Not at all. If there's proper provision for them. People
have been quite happily taking bikes on trains for years: as
a viable way of getting from A to D (via B and C). Strange
that the situation -- with regard to provision for cycles --
should change now.

"Richard" <richard2002@ntlworld.com>typed

> "David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:k0fve0h4t97bm2m2q5eo6bo9j27t3gadl7@4ax.com...
> > >there is a conflict of interest between passenger
> > >seating and cycle carriage on many peak South West
> > >Trains' services.
> >
> > Only because of the piss poor design of the new trains.
> > Piss poor design is not compulsory and it is possible to
> > design trains with suitable facilities.

> No, even at the design stage the conflict exists. Guard's
> cage or 12 extra seats? No-brainer really, unless you have
> to waste that space anyway (half-carriage crush zones, for
> example - I assume the space wasted on Voyagers on the
> bike/luggage area is prohibited for seating?

My original contribution to this thread seems to have
disappeared.

I travelled on the Waterloo-Weymouth line last week using 4
trains in all. On only one of those was the catering car in
use for the whole journey (the buffet closed at Brockenhurst
on our outward Waterloo-Weymouth journey). I don't see why
SWT waste huge amounts of space for catering and fail to
provide for potentially loyal cyclists.

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

"[Not Responding]" wrote:
>
> On 09 Jul 2004 15:29:17 GMT, wafflycathcs@aol.comcomcom
> (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
> >>I really hate what's happening to our public transport
> >>infrastrucure.
> >
> >It has to be said...
> >
> >... What public transport infrastructure???
> >
> How true.

> [1] Either through life style choices such as living in
> the country and working/studying/shopping in town or
> through simply getting used to the luxuries of private
> space, CD players etc that cars offer and falsely
> believing that travel cannot be accomplished without
> these.
>
> Not that I have anything against people spending their
> cash on luxuries such as travelling in private or rural
> dormitory living. I just get irked when these people then
> go on to say that travel without a car is crap or
> impossible.

I live in a semi-rural area and we have been car-free for16
years. i agree with everything you say.

<Cue all excuses from the car-dependent brigade>

John B

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:25:32 +0100, TheMole <buh@snarf.net> wrote:

> But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate,
> don't you think?

Not on a near-deserted train heading out from London at
9:30 am. This used to be allowed, and in the proposed
scheme is banned.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:11:43 GMT someone who may be "Richard"
<richard2002@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-

>> Only because of the piss poor design of the new trains.
>> Piss poor design is not compulsory and it is possible to
>> design trains with suitable facilities.
>
>No, even at the design stage the conflict exists. Guard's
>cage or 12 extra seats?

Neither. Both are examples of piss poor design.

Something like the Class 170s flexible space shows what is
possible with high quality design. That flexible space is
far from perfect, but it does point the way.

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

Ricardo <ricardo@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ccn3cl$e4h$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> Why not? Gedankenexperiment: those 3% of journeys suddenly
> becomes, say, 70%. The ££££ ploughed into subsidising
> motor cars can be diverted onto the renationalised
> railways

LOL!

I think you've got that the wrong way round. If 50% of the
drivers out there suddenly stopped driving, the country
would have a £20bn a year tax hole that would need to be
filled from somewhere else. Even if road maintenece was
halved it would only save £3bn a year.

Face it, motorists subsidise the railways for you and I, and
if they all came on the 8:22 to London Bridge, we'd have to
travel on the roof.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:13:33 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-

>My original contribution to this thread seems to have
>disappeared.

I saw it.

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

In news:2lb80iFacuq4U1@uni-berlin.de,
Dr Curious <curiosity238@hotmail.com> typed:
> "Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrncf0pjf.28v.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
<snip>

It seems your killfile's still faulty.

A

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:25:32 +0100 someone who may be TheMole
<buh@snarf.net> wrote this:-

>A pram can not be left at the station

Oh, yes it can.

>and is *needed* if you have a baby.

One can carry babies.

>Totally different to a cycle.

Correct. A cycle is more necessary for those that use them.

>But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't
>you think?

Nice try.

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

Helen Deborah Vecht helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk opined the
following...
> My original contribution to this thread seems to have
> disappeared.
>
> I travelled on the Waterloo-Weymouth line last week using
> 4 trains in all. On only one of those was the catering car
> in use for the whole journey (the buffet closed at
> Brockenhurst on our outward Waterloo-Weymouth journey). I
> don't see why SWT waste huge amounts of space for catering
> and fail to provide for potentially loyal cyclists.

Simple. When the catering carriage is open they are able to
sell refreshments at vastly inflated prices. If they just
had bike storage there they wouldn't be able to do this!

Jon

Paul Weaver wrote:

> Ricardo <ricardo@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<ccn3cl$e4h$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
>>Why not? Gedankenexperiment: those 3% of journeys suddenly
>>becomes, say, 70%. The ££££ ploughed into subsidising
>>motor cars can be diverted onto the renationalised
>>railways
>
>
> LOL!
>
> I think you've got that the wrong way round. If 50% of the
> drivers out there suddenly stopped driving, the country
> would have a £20bn a year tax hole that would need to be
> filled from somewhere else. Even if road maintenece was
> halved it would only save £3bn a year.

ITYF that motor vehicles are a net drain on the economy.
There might be be £20bn pa less income (let's assume your
figures are correct, I'm not going to check them at 1am ;-),
but there would also be considerably less outgoing in terms
of congestion costs, accident costs, pollution costs, health
costs, etc, etc, which would more than make up for it.