Additional cycle spaces on FGW HSTs



D

Duncan

Guest
New posters have appeared at FGW stations saying that from the start of
the new timetable there is a change in the cycle arrangements for HSTs
calling at stations with short platforms.

Bikes will now be carried in the front power car which have been fitted
with racks to hang 3 bikes for passengers boarding or alighting at
stations with short platforms.

HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.

Duncan
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"Duncan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> New posters have appeared at FGW stations saying that from the start of
> the new timetable there is a change in the cycle arrangements for HSTs
> calling at stations with short platforms.
>
> Bikes will now be carried in the front power car which have been fitted
> with racks to hang 3 bikes for passengers boarding or alighting at
> stations with short platforms.
>
> HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
> allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.
>
> Duncan


So they occupy a tiny amount more space for bike storage in an area where
no-one could be seated and change the spacious table seating in the
carriages into sardines in a tin airline style seating... something tells me
they're going on a space efficiency drive. One problem I have with the 'new'
HSTs is that at 6' 5", there isn't enough leg room with the new seating for
me to be comfortable and everyone scrambles for the table seats first.

Paul
 
C

Chris

Guest
On Nov 30, 10:58 pm, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
> HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
> allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.


This assumption is incorrect....Coach A is the only space generally
available for cycles. At short platforms, especially going towards
London where the First Class coaches will usually lead, coach A will
be off the rear end of the platform. Hence the suggested use of thye
power car.

Ordinarily, the power car spaces will *not* be available - hence the
advice is always to reserve your space.

On Dec 1, 7:54 am, "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> So they occupy a tiny amount more space for bike storage in an area where
> no-one could be seated and change the spacious table seating in the
> carriages into sardines in a tin airline style seating... something tells me
> they're going on a space efficiency drive.


At 6' 4" myself, I appreciate the gripe - but the DfT Government)
wanted 30% more capacity in the cheapest way possible from this
franchise, and all operators bidding were required to adhere. If you
don't like it, use your vote at the next election, rather than (this
time) blaming the hapless operator. It ain't their fault.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
<snip>
> On Dec 1, 7:54 am, "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> So they occupy a tiny amount more space for bike storage in an area where
>> no-one could be seated and change the spacious table seating in the
>> carriages into sardines in a tin airline style seating... something tells
>> me
>> they're going on a space efficiency drive.

>
> At 6' 4" myself, I appreciate the gripe - but the DfT Government)
> wanted 30% more capacity in the cheapest way possible from this
> franchise, and all operators bidding were required to adhere. If you
> don't like it, use your vote at the next election, rather than (this
> time) blaming the hapless operator. It ain't their fault.


I can understand them saying they wanted more capacity - pity the operator
didn't pick up on the need and do something about it themselves...
Otherwise there wouldn't have been need for those rail commuters to have
their ticket strike (that was on the news) a while back. As for ways of
getting 30 % more capacity, running trains with slightly more seats (but
still plenty of legroom) more often would have achieved this. If freight
trains were relegated to nightime use of the tracks through the use of
off-peak discounted charges from the line provider - as happens in other
countries - then this could be achieved. I see no need for passenger trains
to be delayed by slow running freight trains up front and nor do I see the
need for large sections of the network to be shutdown for 'engineering
works' during the daytime hours (even if they are on Sundays etc) when they
could perform scheduled track maintenance solely at night (like London
Underground). I realise these later issues are outside of any passenger
operators control but I don't believe they couldn't do anything about the
first.

Paul
 
C

Chris

Guest
On Dec 2, 8:30 pm, "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I can understand them saying they wanted more capacity - pity the operator
> didn't pick up on the need and do something about it themselves...
> Otherwise there wouldn't have been need for those rail commuters to have
> their ticket strike (that was on the news) a while back. As for ways of
> getting 30 % more capacity, running trains with slightly more seats (but
> still plenty of legroom) more often would have achieved this.


As it was a franchise commitment from the start, they had picked up on
it before getting the franchise. The original timetable was imposed on
them by the DfT - the only problem was that they didn't campaign to
the DfT hard enough that they knew it wasn't going to work. But the
DfT, as usual, thought it knew best....

There was no more spare stock to run more trains - there still isn't.
Not that is prohibitively priced, as the Adelante fleet is. No
operator wants it at the price asked for it. And the DfT specified the
number of seats in each coach. And the HSE specified theheight of each
seat back too.

> I realise these later issues are outside of any passenger
> operators control but I don't believe they couldn't do anything about the
> first.


Wrong, I'm afraid.
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Dec 2, 8:30 pm, "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I can understand them saying they wanted more capacity - pity the
>> operator
>> didn't pick up on the need and do something about it themselves...
>> Otherwise there wouldn't have been need for those rail commuters to have
>> their ticket strike (that was on the news) a while back. As for ways of
>> getting 30 % more capacity, running trains with slightly more seats (but
>> still plenty of legroom) more often would have achieved this.

>
> As it was a franchise commitment from the start, they had picked up on
> it before getting the franchise. The original timetable was imposed on
> them by the DfT - the only problem was that they didn't campaign to
> the DfT hard enough that they knew it wasn't going to work. But the
> DfT, as usual, thought it knew best....
>
> There was no more spare stock to run more trains - there still isn't.
> Not that is prohibitively priced, as the Adelante fleet is. No
> operator wants it at the price asked for it. And the DfT specified the
> number of seats in each coach. And the HSE specified theheight of each
> seat back too.
>
>> I realise these later issues are outside of any passenger
>> operators control but I don't believe they couldn't do anything about the
>> first.

>
> Wrong, I'm afraid.


You hit the nail on the head with your statement 'they didn't campaign to
the DfT hard enough that they knew it wasn't going to work'. When the
passenger strike was on in the news they had the PERFECT opportunity to
publicise their side of things but we saw nothing. I'm sorry but when you
have masses of passengers in an uproar about lack of seating and no fronting
up by the company to put their side of things (and there definitely was no
passing of blame to the govt for not allowing them to make the required
changes) then can you see why people would think they just don't care about
providing more seats?

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:30:37 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>If freight
>trains were relegated to nightime use of the tracks through the use of
>off-peak discounted charges from the line provider - as happens in other
>countries


Which other countries?

While some freight flows are suitable for overnight long distance
movements, others are not. Should the latter be priced off the
railways and onto the roads (where the extra lorries will not appeal
to many cyclists)?

>nor do I see the
>need for large sections of the network to be shutdown for 'engineering
>works' during the daytime hours (even if they are on Sundays etc) when they
>could perform scheduled track maintenance solely at night (like London
>Underground).


London Underground do a variety of track maintenance during the day,
on the sections above ground. It has many advantages, not least that
the light is rather better.

When major work is necessary underground lines are closed, though
they are certainly far better at keeping trains running than the
"main line" railway.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
D

Doki

Guest
"Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Duncan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> New posters have appeared at FGW stations saying that from the start of
>> the new timetable there is a change in the cycle arrangements for HSTs
>> calling at stations with short platforms.
>>
>> Bikes will now be carried in the front power car which have been fitted
>> with racks to hang 3 bikes for passengers boarding or alighting at
>> stations with short platforms.
>>
>> HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
>> allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.
>>
>> Duncan

>
> So they occupy a tiny amount more space for bike storage in an area where
> no-one could be seated and change the spacious table seating in the
> carriages into sardines in a tin airline style seating... something tells
> me they're going on a space efficiency drive. One problem I have with the
> 'new' HSTs is that at 6' 5", there isn't enough leg room with the new
> seating for me to be comfortable and everyone scrambles for the table
> seats first.


Bring back compartments. I was on a train in Cz, and it was brilliant.
Opening windows to give you fresh air, compartments with 6 seats, so the
probability of being irritated by an idiot was far far lower. Unfortunately,
their modern trains follow our airline model in the main.
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
[cross-post added]

On Dec 2, 11:25 am, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:58 pm, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
> > allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.

>
> This assumption is incorrect....Coach A is the only space generally
> available for cycles. At short platforms, especially going towards
> London where the First Class coaches will usually lead, coach A will
> be off the rear end of the platform. Hence the suggested use of thye
> power car.


I'm a bit puzzled about this.

At Charlbury, HSTs have always stopped at the short platform. Coaches
A, B, C, D and maybe E are on the platform - i.e. the majority of
standard class, including the bike space. This is the case whether the
train is heading to or from London.

If they're going to change it so that "the front of the train" is
always on the platform (and Charlbury is indeed listed on the poster
about the new bike arrangement), that will mean a lot of people
walking through the train to get off at their stop: and also that bike
accommodation for the Cotswold Line, which is almost all short-
platformed, is effectively reduced from six spaces (in coach A) to
three (in the power car).

Ok, so the increased use of HSTs will mean they're stopping at short
platform stations that don't have stop-boards beyond the platform. But
surely it would be better to install the stop-boards rather than this
uncomfortable arrangement?

Richard
 
P

Paul Scott

Guest
"Richard Fairhurst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> [cross-post added]
>
> I'm a bit puzzled about this.
>
> At Charlbury, HSTs have always stopped at the short platform. Coaches
> A, B, C, D and maybe E are on the platform - i.e. the majority of
> standard class, including the bike space. This is the case whether the
> train is heading to or from London.
>
> If they're going to change it so that "the front of the train" is
> always on the platform (and Charlbury is indeed listed on the poster
> about the new bike arrangement), that will mean a lot of people
> walking through the train to get off at their stop: and also that bike
> accommodation for the Cotswold Line, which is almost all short-
> platformed, is effectively reduced from six spaces (in coach A) to
> three (in the power car).
>
> Ok, so the increased use of HSTs will mean they're stopping at short
> platform stations that don't have stop-boards beyond the platform. But
> surely it would be better to install the stop-boards rather than this
> uncomfortable arrangement?
>


Is it possibly because the new improved SDO only operates between the front
of the train and wherever the guard is?

Paul
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
On Dec 4, 11:23 am, "Paul Scott" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Is it possibly because the new improved SDO only operates between the front
> of the train and wherever the guard is?


Sounds plausible, but if so, that's braindead beyond belief.

Richard
 
D

Duncan

Guest
In article <80d4f3e3-cc97-4201-8296-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> [cross-post added]
>
> On Dec 2, 11:25 am, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 10:58 pm, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > HSTs will now have 12 bikes spaces in total assuming that access will be
> > > allowed to both power cars if the 6 spaces in Coach A are full.

> >
> > This assumption is incorrect....Coach A is the only space generally
> > available for cycles. At short platforms, especially going towards
> > London where the First Class coaches will usually lead, coach A will
> > be off the rear end of the platform. Hence the suggested use of thye
> > power car.


The leaflet adds more detail, including "unless instructed otherwise
there are no cycle spaces available in the rear power car".

So while generally only the spaces in Coach A will be available for
travel between stations will full length platforms, it does add the
possibility that the staff will allow the use of one or both power cars
if required, depending on how generous they are feeling and how much
time is available.


> If they're going to change it so that "the front of the train" is
> always on the platform (and Charlbury is indeed listed on the poster
> about the new bike arrangement), that will mean a lot of people
> walking through the train to get off at their stop: and also that bike
> accommodation for the Cotswold Line, which is almost all short-
> platformed, is effectively reduced from six spaces (in coach A) to
> three (in the power car).


The leaflet says that a maximum of 6 spaces can be reserved on HSTs to
Bristol / Cardiff and Swansea. All other HSTs services will now only
have 3 reservable spaces. However 6 spaces will continue to be available
between stations with full length platforms.

So yes this change will reduce cycle capacity at stations with short
platforms and also reduce the reservable spaces at stations with full
length platforms.

Duncan
 
D

Duncan

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Richard Fairhurst" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > At Charlbury, HSTs have always stopped at the short platform. Coaches
> > A, B, C, D and maybe E are on the platform - i.e. the majority of
> > standard class, including the bike space. This is the case whether the
> > train is heading to or from London.

<snip>
> > Ok, so the increased use of HSTs will mean they're stopping at short
> > platform stations that don't have stop-boards beyond the platform. But
> > surely it would be better to install the stop-boards rather than this
> > uncomfortable arrangement?

>
> Is it possibly because the new improved SDO only operates between the front
> of the train and wherever the guard is?


The SDO control panels I've seen fitted to the FGW allow three positions
with the key: unlock all doors, unlock all doors forward of the panel
and unlock all doors to the rear of the panel. This therefore shouldn't
prevent the current procedure at Charlbury from continuing.

Duncan
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:30:37 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>If freight
>>trains were relegated to nightime use of the tracks through the use of
>>off-peak discounted charges from the line provider - as happens in other
>>countries

>
> Which other countries?


Does it matter, I can think of two where almost all freight trains run at
night - certainly nowhere near the extent of freight trains here during the
daytime. Do you dispute other countries do this?

> While some freight flows are suitable for overnight long distance
> movements, others are not. Should the latter be priced off the
> railways and onto the roads (where the extra lorries will not appeal
> to many cyclists)?


To the contrary, if the tracks were available at lower costs during the
night to freight operators, more customers may be interested in the lower
rail freight costs which should flow on and there'd be fewer HGVs on the
road. I'd be interested to know what percentage of unsuitable for night rail
freight goods there are and the reasons for this. If it's concerns about
security then can the valuable objects not be put in secured goods wagons?

>>nor do I see the
>>need for large sections of the network to be shutdown for 'engineering
>>works' during the daytime hours (even if they are on Sundays etc) when
>>they
>>could perform scheduled track maintenance solely at night (like London
>>Underground).

>
> London Underground do a variety of track maintenance during the day,
> on the sections above ground. It has many advantages, not least that
> the light is rather better.


A large amount, and the majority by far is done at night to cause minimal
network disruption. They also use portable lighting where required. For the
sake of saving commuters disruption, I'd much rather track workers had to
use artificial lighting and work unsociable hours.

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:33:06 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>If freight
>>>trains were relegated to nightime use of the tracks through the use of
>>>off-peak discounted charges from the line provider - as happens in other
>>>countries

>>
>> Which other countries?

>
>Does it matter, I can think of two where almost all freight trains run at
>night - certainly nowhere near the extent of freight trains here during the
>daytime.


I note that you were unable to support your assertion.

>Do you dispute other countries do this?


Many/most freight trains run at night in the UK. However, that does
not mean that you assertion is true.

>I'd be interested to know what percentage of unsuitable for night rail
>freight goods there are and the reasons for this.


One example is where the trains are part of a JIT system. Unless
such things are to be left entirely to the lorry operators...



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:33:06 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
> <p_murp[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>>If freight
>>>>trains were relegated to nightime use of the tracks through the use of
>>>>off-peak discounted charges from the line provider - as happens in other
>>>>countries
>>>
>>> Which other countries?

>>
>>Does it matter, I can think of two where almost all freight trains run at
>>night - certainly nowhere near the extent of freight trains here during
>>the
>>daytime.

>
> I note that you were unable to support your assertion.


I've not stated the countries I had in mind (yet) but that does not mean the
situation doesn't exist.

>>Do you dispute other countries do this?

>
> Many/most freight trains run at night in the UK. However, that does
> not mean that you assertion is true.


Is that a yes or no? i.e. do you agree or disagree that there are other
countries which run the vast majority of freight trains at night - or are
you unsure? My assertion as well as claiming this currently happens overseas
is to get the message into peoples minds that it's possible to do it here to
(but not without ruffling a few feathers along the way) and it would be in
the interests of the general population to do so here.

>>I'd be interested to know what percentage of unsuitable for night rail
>>freight goods there are and the reasons for this.

>
> One example is where the trains are part of a JIT system. Unless
> such things are to be left entirely to the lorry operators...


That doesn't mean the freight is unsuitable for a night train - especially
if it arrives at it's destination in the morning. If it's freight which is
then, from the rail yards, delivered locally by road e.g. inwards goods to
many factories, then it's possible the final step could take place at a time
to suit If the manufacturer utilising a just in time system has the offer
of cheaper freight overnight or peak day rates they would likely save money
on transport by adjusting their schedule to accommodate. The sorts of
freight trains I've recently seen holding up passenger trains include a
rubbish train, cement train and a covered vehicle train going to the
continent (although interestingly, by the time it got there, it would be
well and truly night time - so should it be good enough for over there but
not here). These examples were all spotted on lines that are very congested
during the day but with loads of spare capacity at night.

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:05:19 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Many/most freight trains run at night in the UK. However, that does
>> not mean that you assertion is true.

>
>Is that a yes or no? i.e. do you agree or disagree that there are other
>countries which run the vast majority of freight trains at night - or are
>you unsure?


I am perfectly sure. One of these countries is England.

>> One example is where the trains are part of a JIT system. Unless
>> such things are to be left entirely to the lorry operators...

>
>That doesn't mean the freight is unsuitable for a night train - especially
>if it arrives at it's destination in the morning.


I suggest that you don't know much about JIT.

>The sorts of
>freight trains I've recently seen holding up passenger trains include a
>rubbish train,


Around here IIRC such trains are run overnight. The loading and
unloading is then done during the day.

>cement train


Presumably the cement company specify when they wish to start
unloading the train. Having an extra train in the circuit so one
could stand in a siding until that time would push the cost up and
mean that the business was transferred to the roads, where the
lorries would not improve the situation faced by cyclists.

>and a covered vehicle train going to the
>continent (although interestingly, by the time it got there, it would be
>well and truly night time


If it was going to Italy then my recollection is that the transit
time is something around 22 hours and thus it will be operated at
various times of the day on its journey.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
On Dec 4, 1:15 pm, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
> The SDO control panels I've seen fitted to the FGW allow three positions
> with the key: unlock all doors, unlock all doors forward of the panel
> and unlock all doors to the rear of the panel. This therefore shouldn't
> prevent the current procedure at Charlbury from continuing.


Unfortunately FGW has now confirmed that it _will_ be changing the
procedure, and the front of the train will always be stopping on the
platform at Charlbury. This means the First Class area on London-bound
services.

This also restricts Cotswold Line services to three bikes on an eight-
carriage HST, as pretty much all the stations have short platforms.

Madness, complete madness.

Richard
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:05:19 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> Many/most freight trains run at night in the UK. However, that does
>>> not mean that you assertion is true.

>>
>>Is that a yes or no? i.e. do you agree or disagree that there are other
>>countries which run the vast majority of freight trains at night - or are
>>you unsure?

>
> I am perfectly sure. One of these countries is England.


I think not by the definition of vast majority I have in mind - I estimate
over 90 %. Now you could claim that countrywide this may be the case but I'm
certain that on the lines I travel on in the South East it's not.

>>> One example is where the trains are part of a JIT system. Unless
>>> such things are to be left entirely to the lorry operators...

>>
>>That doesn't mean the freight is unsuitable for a night train - especially
>>if it arrives at it's destination in the morning.

>
> I suggest that you don't know much about JIT.


Because? What part of my argument is flawed in your opinion (bearing in mind
the manufacturer would likely benifit through lower transport costs by using
off-peak timings)? Just in time (JIT) supply chains aren't new, this was
even included in my tertiary engineering quals (which included elements of
production engineering) gained years ago.

>>The sorts of
>>freight trains I've recently seen holding up passenger trains include a
>>rubbish train,

>
> Around here IIRC such trains are run overnight. The loading and
> unloading is then done during the day.


Well I wish ALL of them were here as well but thats clearly not the case. I
also recently spotted a smelly recycling waste train during the day
travelling at low speed but I dont know if that delayed other trains. It
still wasn't pleasant having it go past the station though.

>>cement train

>
> Presumably the cement company specify when they wish to start
> unloading the train. Having an extra train in the circuit so one
> could stand in a siding until that time would push the cost up and
> mean that the business was transferred to the roads, where the
> lorries would not improve the situation faced by cyclists.


You're missing the point that the company where the cement was going to
could change their schedule to take advantage of cheaper night transport
rates in the long term. I believe if they really insist on having the trains
travel during the day, they should be penalised (a bit like congestion
charging) and that penalty should be used in ways that reduce congestion for
passenger trains.

>>and a covered vehicle train going to the
>>continent (although interestingly, by the time it got there, it would be
>>well and truly night time

>
> If it was going to Italy then my recollection is that the transit
> time is something around 22 hours and thus it will be operated at
> various times of the day on its journey.


No I was told Germany (although in fairness I don't know what part). I was
curious what was in the very secure looking train (which looked like the
wagons had to be uncoupled to open them up) so I asked one of the local
station staff. No the train didn't contain bikes and this doesn't relate to
bikes anymore so I fear this is off topic. It still, meant that the
continent was getting priority for goods trains travelling at night and we
were stuck with it's journey during day light hours.

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:37:59 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I am perfectly sure. One of these countries is England.

>
>I think not by the definition of vast majority I have in mind - I estimate
>over 90 %. Now you could claim that countrywide this may be the case but I'm
>certain that on the lines I travel on in the South East it's not.


You sit up at 2am to count the freight trains in order to make your
assertion?

Most of South East England used to have bans on freight trains
during peak hours. However, IIRC this was unacceptable under the
provisions of the Tories' Railways Act and was discontinued.

>> I suggest that you don't know much about JIT.

>
>Because?


Because part of the essence of JIT is that materials arrive as they
are needed, they are not held up, perhaps for 18 hours, for the
convenience of the transport operator.

>> Presumably the cement company specify when they wish to start
>> unloading the train. Having an extra train in the circuit so one
>> could stand in a siding until that time would push the cost up and
>> mean that the business was transferred to the roads, where the
>> lorries would not improve the situation faced by cyclists.

>
>You're missing the point that the company where the cement was going to
>could change their schedule to take advantage of cheaper night transport
>rates in the long term.


Do you think that would outweigh the costs to the business, for
example paying staff to work permanent nights?

You are also assuming that the railways have a monopoly in the
movement of bulk cement. They don't. Unless you are proposing lorry
operators also pay time based access charges all your proposal is
likely to do is get the business shifted onto the roads, where the
extra lorry movements are unlikely to be good for cyclists. I have
made this point more than once and it has yet to have a satisfactory
reply.

>No I was told Germany (although in fairness I don't know what part). I was
>curious what was in the very secure looking train (which looked like the
>wagons had to be uncoupled to open them up) so I asked one of the local
>station staff. No the train didn't contain bikes and this doesn't relate to
>bikes anymore so I fear this is off topic. It still, meant that the
>continent was getting priority for goods trains travelling at night and we
>were stuck with it's journey during day light hours.


There is a television station for German railways, Bahn TV on one of
the satellites, this puts on cab ride videos overnight. I sometimes
wind through them at high speed and there are plenty of freight
trains operating in Germany in daylight hours.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 

Similar threads