South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'... - Page 5

Paul Weaver usenet@isorox.co.uk opined the following...
> LOL!
>=20
> 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 =A320bn a year tax hole that would need to be
> filled from somewhere else. Even if road maintenece was
> halved it would only save =A33bn a year.

Much as I hate to say it: Cite! Other posters have claimed
in the past=20 that road tax + fuel tax do not cover the
costs of road maintenance, yet=20 you suggest that road
maintenance costs less than 10% of the money made.

> 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.

Or alternatively the 8:22 to London Bridge could take on
some extra=20 carriages to cater for the extra passengers.
Since the train would be=20 considerably busier with regular
passengers the extra costs could be=20 covered.

All things being equal increased demand will lead to an
increase in=20 supply. Except in the British rail industry
where it will lead to an=20 increase in discomfort.

Jon

In news:MPG.1b5a95a3d39de299898a9@news.clara.net,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:
> 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!

But they could sell bike spaces at some kind of inflated
prices. Maybe even have card or ticket operated stands to
fix them to, so as to automate the process.

A

Ambrose Nankivell $firstname+n$@gmail.com opined the
following...
> But they could sell bike spaces at some kind of inflated
> prices. Maybe even have card or ticket operated stands to
> fix them to, so as to automate the process.

Would you buy bike time in stations or minutes? It would a
good incentive for the train companies to run delays since
they would earn money on the "top-ups" necessary to keep
your bike there.

Jon

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk>typed

> 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

Wouldn't they? On two of the trains I took, there was a
trolley plying wares while the buffet car was closed. On
only one, was there no catering. The catering car was a
waste of space for much of my trip though, much more than
decent bike space would have been.

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

Jon Senior <jon AT restlesslemon DOTco DOT uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b5a950967f7d8369898a8@news.clara.net>...
> Paul Weaver usenet@isorox.co.uk opined the following...
> > 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.
>
> Much as I hate to say it: Cite! Other posters have claimed
> in the past

"Motorists earn the government an estimated £42bn a year"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

Even if you dont think that petrol tax should go to
transport (I do by the way), and even if you dont think a
decent road network is essential to the economy, you cant
aruge that if half the drivers stopped driving, half the tax
would be raised.

Can't find the £6bn figure for road maintenence at the
moment, however the entire public expenditure on transport
was only £16bn this year. It should be nearer £40bn (about
half and half between the motorway network, severe
underinvestment in the past decade or two, and public
transport. Crossrail and central railway for starters)

http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html

> that road tax + fuel tax do not cover the costs of road
> maintenance, yet you suggest that road maintenance costs
> less than 10% of the money made.

No, about 15%.

> > 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.
>
> Or alternatively the 8:22 to London Bridge could take on
> some extra carriages to cater for the extra passengers.
> Since the train would be considerably busier with regular
> passengers the extra costs could be covered.

To add another 3 million people arriving at london each
morning, you would have to
1) Extend platforms
2) More platforms
3) More terminals
4) More tracks
5) Park and ride 24/7 express services from about 30 miles
out of London (combined with an orbital motorway and rail
network funneling european traffic away from the M25),
and similar services from about 15 miles outside other
major cities.

Ricardo <ricardo@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> 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

Congestion will simply move from roads to the underfunded
rail network, it will take longer for people to get from A
to B, and it will be more inefficient (why do you think that
trains are so expansive, yet still receive subsidy?). Do you
have any figures for accident costs?

As for polution and health costs, transport is a tiny dent
compared with power generation and industry output.
Precisely what "polution" are you complaining about?

Paul Weaver usenet@isorox.co.uk opined the following...
> "Motorists earn the government an estimated =A342bn a
> year" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

I don't have the figures to dispute that but given it's a
quoted=20 guesstimate from the RAC I'd be inclined to take
it with a pinch of=20 salt.

> Even if you dont think that petrol tax should go to
> transport (I do by the way), and even if you dont think a
> decent road network is essential to the economy, you cant
> aruge that if half the drivers stopped driving, half the
> tax would be raised.

I wouldn't argue that. I'm just not so sure about the road
maintenance=20 costs. I think that a good road network is
essential to the economy as=20 much because we have come to
depend upon it. If a greater proportion of=20 freight was
moved by rail with road links being used for the final=20
distribution of goods rather than their movement around the
country then=20 the road maintenance requirements would be
significantly decreased.

> Can't find the =A36bn figure for road maintenence at the
> moment, however the entire public expenditure on transport
> was only =A316bn this year. It should be nearer =A340bn
> (about half and half between the motorway network, severe
> underinvestment in the past decade or two, and public
> transport. Crossrail and central railway for starters)
>=20
> http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html

The problem with rail at the minute is that it is subsidised
in an=20 underhand manner which disappears into
shareholders' pockets.

> > that road tax + fuel tax do not cover the costs of road
> > maintenance, ye=
t=20
> > you suggest that road maintenance costs less than 10% of
> > the money made=
.
>=20
> No, about 15%.

My bad. Crap bit of maths there!

> To add another 3 million people arriving at london each
> morning, you would have to
> 1) Extend platforms

As far as I know, almost every platform in Kings Cross can
accomodate a=20 full-length intercity. Most of the commuters
that I know use the local=20 services to commute which are
rarely more than four carriages and often=20 only two.

> 2) More platforms

If you can fit a longer train onto the same platform then
you can carry=20 more people without more platforms. Or you
can use the system used at=20 Glasgow (And probably others)
where trains are doubled up on terminating=20 platforms.

> 3) More terminals

See answer to 2.

> 4) More tracks

Would be good but not essential. A long train takes as many
tracks (1)=20 as a short train. The only concession would be
a third track to ensure=20 continued operation in the event
of a failure on one of the others.

> 5) Park and ride 24/7 express services from about 30 miles
> out of London (combined with an orbital motorway and
> rail network funneling european traffic away from the
> M25), and similar services from about 15 miles outside
> other major cities.

Why?

I can see where you are coming from but given that we
have the "Heaviest=20 traffic levels in Europe" (RAC!)
you have to wonder how the rest of=20 Europe manages.
Presumably there is some way of dealing with a lower=20
incidence of car use.

There is also no real need for everyone to move to the
railways. If=20 everyone managed to take one passenger with
them on their commute then=20 that would halve the number of
cars while keeping the basic income from=20 tax the same.

Jon

Helen Deborah Vecht helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk opined the
following...
> Wouldn't they? On two of the trains I took, there was a
> trolley plying wares while the buffet car was closed. On
> only one, was there no catering. The catering car was a
> waste of space for much of my trip though, much more than
> decent bike space would have been.

I forgot a smiley! I'm fully in agreement and would love to
see the catering car replaced with just the trolley. GNER
could easily run two trolleys on their trains for less cost
to them. But then GNER still have guard's vans where I can
dump my bike (and often luggage) for the journey.

Jon

On 11 Jul 2004 07:48:41 -0700, Paul Weaver <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:

> will be more inefficient (why do you think that trains
> are so expansive, yet still receive subsidy?).

I never understand why cerain people are so determined the
railways should work without 'government' (really mine, of
course) money being pumped in. After all, precious few roads
'work' without government money being pumped in, and teh
ones that do eventually self-finance (of which the only one
that springs immediately to mind is that across teh river at
Dartford) then get soundly criticised for doing so.

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

These are probably the same people who regard taxpayers cash
spent on railways as "subsidy" whereas cash spent on roads
is "investment"

Huw Francis

"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrncf2rgr.1sk.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
> On 11 Jul 2004 07:48:41 -0700, Paul Weaver
> <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > will be more inefficient (why do you think that trains
> > are so expansive, yet still receive subsidy?).
>
> I never understand why cerain people are so determined the
> railways should work without 'government' (really mine, of
> course) money being pumped in. After all, precious few
> roads 'work' without government money being pumped in, and
> teh ones that do eventually self-finance (of which the
> only one that springs immediately to mind is that across
> teh river at Dartford) then get soundly criticised for
> doing so.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk>typed

> Helen Deborah Vecht helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk opined the
> following...
> > Wouldn't they? On two of the trains I took, there was a
> > trolley plying wares while the buffet car was closed. On
> > only one, was there no catering. The catering car was a
> > waste of space for much of my trip though, much more
> > than decent bike space would have been.

> I forgot a smiley! I'm fully in agreement and would love
> to see the catering car replaced with just the trolley.
> GNER could easily run two trolleys on their trains for
> less cost to them. But then GNER still have guard's vans
> where I can dump my bike (and often luggage) for the
> journey.

> Jon

GNER catering is actually reasonable value for money, as
it happens.

I think on such long trips and with trains as long as many
of the GNER stock, a catering car is probably a reasonable
use of the space (trolleys would need to be replaced several
times on some runs)

What is not reasonable is that 20% of a 5-car set is unused.
What also does not help is that the 10-car sets of yore seem
to be a distant memory.

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

In message <MPG.1b5b74ba3e71cccb9898ad@news.clara.net>,
Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>As far as I know, almost every platform in Kings Cross can
>accomodate a full-length intercity. Most of the commuters
>that I know use the local services to commute which are
>rarely more than four carriages and often only two.

The smallest trains that use KX (at any time of day) are 4
carriages, and the suburban part of the station, that they
mainly use, can accommodate only 8 carriage trains. In the
rush hours most commuter trains are 8 carriages.

Thameslink 3000 will let 12 carriage trains operate through
to the south, rather than terminating at KX.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fZVVdnCI6Z8AFA4U@perry.co.uk...
>
> The smallest trains that use KX (at any time of day) are 4
> carriages, and the suburban part of the station, that they
> mainly use, can accommodate only 8 carriage trains.

Don't 3-car 313s go there late evenings and weekends? Peter

"Paul Weaver" <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0891fea.0407110648.7f274f60@posting.google.com...
> Congestion will simply move from roads to the underfunded
> rail network, it will take longer for people to get from A
> to B, and it will be more inefficient (why do you think
> that trains are so expansive, yet still receive subsidy?).
> Do you have any figures for accident costs?

I have published these figures more than once, try a search.
They run into billions.

> As for polution and health costs, transport is a tiny dent
> compared with power generation and industry output.
> Precisely what "polution" are you complaining about?

Pollution - transport is a sizeable proportion of overall
CO2 emissions, and a growing proportion.

Health costs - see above.

Paul Weaver wrote:

> "Motorists earn the government an estimated £42bn a year"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

And the costs come to between 45 and 52 billion per year (in
1996 - presumably worse now), eg

http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/...WPbriefing.ht-
ml#motorists

(which is a nice precis of Maddison et al, "The True Cost of
Road Transport, Earthscan, 1996)