Additional cycle spaces on FGW HSTs



P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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?


If you live just across the street from a main railway line (as I used to)
and forget to close the window, thats just about right :)

> 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.


But it's not for the convenience of the transport operator, it's for the
convenience in the long run of the general train using public. If the
company changed their production schedule, they could save money and thats
convenient to them. If its a manufacturing environment where the product
lines change often and unpredictably due to customer/distributor demand and
demand for supplies is difficult to predict then they either pay the premium
for day time rail freight, work around the night time transit delays or use
another method.

>>> 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?


I'd imagine the sorts of companies who'd like to take advantage of rail
freight would already do that anyway (or are at least geared up for such
possibilities at periods of high demand). We're talking heavy industry not
the average 9 - 5.30 shop.

> 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.


As far as HGVs on UK roads go, I think we are in agreement that fewer of
them would make things easier for us cyclists. Nothing in what I've written
would make rail freight less competitive, it'd just force
manufacturers/users of rail freight to consider their priorities.

>>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.


Maybe they're the ones that have come from over 22 hrs away where that cant
be avoided. Id's still feel better if I knew the train I mentioned (which
I've seen on a few occassions now - assuming similar time and train layout
means its the same train) started it's journey at night in the UK.

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:39:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>But it's not for the convenience of the transport operator, it's for the
>convenience in the long run of the general train using public.


As I said, there used to be a peak hours ban in SE England, but IIRC
this was abolished as part of privatisation. Why not ask the Tories
about it if you are so bothered?

>If the
>company changed their production schedule, they could save money


That depends on the other costs. Anyway the cost of transport is
very little of the cost of a product and most of the transport cost
is fixed (it is things like terminals).

You are also assuming that manufacture is something which happens at
a particular time, when in most cases it is something which happens
continuously.

>Nothing in what I've written
>would make rail freight less competitive,


I disagree.

>> 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.

>
>Maybe they're the ones that have come from over 22 hrs away where that cant
>be avoided.


They don't look like it.

>Id's still feel better if I knew the train I mentioned (which
>I've seen on a few occassions now - assuming similar time and train layout
>means its the same train) started it's journey at night in the UK.


Presumably this one train is timed to arrive at its destination when
it is convenient for the customer. That then works back to a
departure time in the UK. Because of the silly rules regarding a
particular tunnel there is not much freight going through it, I
would not like to see more driven away to lorries.


--
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
 
C

Chris

Guest
On Dec 4, 11:15 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.


How can that be? in *both* directions?
London-bound, chances are that the first class coaches are leading -
does the power car stop well off the front of the platform so as to
allow the Standard class coaches to fit on the platform?

This will change, so that the power car & the first few coaches
(likely to be 1st class) will fit on the platform, so all the STD
class ticket holders will need to board at the country end while the
cuclists can go wait with the 1st class-ites at the front.
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
On Dec 6, 10:24 pm, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:15 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> How can that be? in *both* directions?
> London-bound, chances are that the first class coaches are leading -
> does the power car stop well off the front of the platform so as to
> allow the Standard class coaches to fit on the platform?


Yes.

> This will change, so that the power car & the first few coaches
> (likely to be 1st class) will fit on the platform, so all the STD
> class ticket holders will need to board at the country end while the
> cuclists can go wait with the 1st class-ites at the front.


Indeed, that seems to be the plan - but why?

There'll be fewer cycle spaces (3 instead of 6), and that will be a
real problem on the morning HSTs; the guard will be faffing with SDO
switches so dwell time will be increased; and all the First Class
passengers from further down the line will be woken up by a horde of
us cattle class types tramping through the train. It's not even as if
the SDO requires this.

This sounds like a decision made in Swindon by someone who's never
travelled on the Cotswold Line.

Richard
 
P

Paul Murphy

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:39:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>But it's not for the convenience of the transport operator, it's for the
>>convenience in the long run of the general train using public.

>
> As I said, there used to be a peak hours ban in SE England, but IIRC
> this was abolished as part of privatisation. Why not ask the Tories
> about it if you are so bothered?


What makes you think that (or asking any political party) would change
things?

>>If the
>>company changed their production schedule, they could save money

>
> That depends on the other costs. Anyway the cost of transport is
> very little of the cost of a product and most of the transport cost
> is fixed (it is things like terminals).


There's lots of depending factors, thats right. It's swings and
roundabouts... dearer labour costs at night, cheaper electricity rates at
night (don't know if this applies to industry though), inability to contact
many other associated companies/customers at night, fewer interruptions and
more opportunities to get on with things etc. Hence I used the word could,
depending whether things are worked out carefully in advance.

> You are also assuming that manufacture is something which happens at
> a particular time, when in most cases it is something which happens
> continuously.


Did you not read the part I wrote about these rail freight users being heavy
industry and not the average 9 - 5.30 shop.

>>Id's still feel better if I knew the train I mentioned (which
>>I've seen on a few occassions now - assuming similar time and train layout
>>means its the same train) started it's journey at night in the UK.

>
> Presumably this one train is timed to arrive at its destination when
> it is convenient for the customer. That then works back to a
> departure time in the UK. Because of the silly rules regarding a
> particular tunnel there is not much freight going through it, I
> would not like to see more driven away to lorries.


A presumption which cant be confirmed without knowing further details. The
timing may also be because other countries have their priorities better
organised with regards to when they allow freight trains on their congested
tracks.

Paul
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:25:03 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>What makes you think that (or asking any political party) would change
>things?


You were asking about a ban. I told you that there was one and that
it had been removed. I said that if you wanted to know why it was
removed you should ask those who did it.

>> You are also assuming that manufacture is something which happens at
>> a particular time, when in most cases it is something which happens
>> continuously.

>
>Did you not read the part I wrote about these rail freight users being heavy
>industry and not the average 9 - 5.30 shop.


You are the one who said they should change their production
schedule. A 09:00 to 17:30 operation could, in theory do this, a 24
hour operation could not.

>A presumption which cant be confirmed without knowing further details.


You are presuming that there are no further details, but there are.

Freight services through this particular tunnel have been so badly
undermined that the few remaining trains are well known to those
interested in such things. And, whether by accident or design, you
want to undermine them even further.

In particular this train travels on "classic" routes through much of
the mainland, while the long distance passenger trains travel mostly
on new lines.

However, you may be interested to know that this particular train is
considered to be the ideal candidate for the first freight train to
be routed via the new line, which has just been opened for passenger
trains. That is because the end points in the UK are close to the
new line. Nobody wanted this opening to be spoilt by the added
complication of running a freight train over it, but I hope that
sometime in the new year this train will be run on the new line.



--
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:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:25:03 -0000 someone who may be "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>What makes you think that (or asking any political party) would change
>>things?

>
> You were asking about a ban. I told you that there was one and that
> it had been removed. I said that if you wanted to know why it was
> removed you should ask those who did it.


I'm not interested in hearing excuses for whats already happened.

>>> You are also assuming that manufacture is something which happens at
>>> a particular time, when in most cases it is something which happens
>>> continuously.

>>
>>Did you not read the part I wrote about these rail freight users being
>>heavy
>>industry and not the average 9 - 5.30 shop.

>
> You are the one who said they should change their production
> schedule. A 09:00 to 17:30 operation could, in theory do this, a 24
> hour operation could not.


Depends if they're making the same products using the same supplies 24/7 or
if the products change from time to time.

>>A presumption which cant be confirmed without knowing further details.

>
> You are presuming that there are no further details, but there are.
>
> Freight services through this particular tunnel have been so badly
> undermined that the few remaining trains are well known to those
> interested in such things. And, whether by accident or design, you
> want to undermine them even further.


What makes you think that?

> In particular this train travels on "classic" routes through much of
> the mainland, while the long distance passenger trains travel mostly
> on new lines.


That's fine by me, as long as there's no possibility of the freight trains
causing delays to passenger trains on the new lines or smelly trains going
past populated stations/areas - both problems I've encountered more than a
few times..

Paul
 
C

Chris

Guest
On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 10:24 pm, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This will change, so that the power car & the first few coaches
> > (likely to be 1st class) will fit on the platform, so all the STD
> > class ticket holders will need to board at the country end while the
> > cuclists can go wait with the 1st class-ites at the front.

>
> Indeed, that seems to be the plan - but why?


Your answer is here....

On Dec 5, 6:18 pm, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:15 pm, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The SDO control panels I've seen fitted to theFGW 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.

>
> 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.


.........
> There'll be fewer cycle spaces (3 instead of 6), and that will be a
> real problem on the morning HSTs; the guard will be faffing with SDO
> switches so dwell time will be increased; and all the First Class
> passengers from further down the line will be woken up by a horde of
> us cattle class types tramping through the train. It's not even as if
> the SDO requires this.
>
> This sounds like a decision made in Swindon by someone who's never
> travelled on the Cotswold Line.


Rubbish.
As has been stated, SDO means either all doors, or doors in front of /
behind the panel (will open) used to operate SDO. So, whichever
position is used, if the stop boards aren't moved, it would mean doors
opening off the platform. Obviously this can't happen, so one or other
power car needs to be on the platform. For obvious reasons, FGW have
gone for the front power car to be on the platform, and the guard will
use the 'open doors in front of where I'm working' SDO selection to
ensure all doors on the platform will open.
FGW say that installing SDO on old stock isn't a straight forward job
and it was virtually impossible to install an option to asllow choice
as to which coaches had their doors unlocked.
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
On Dec 10, 10:48 am, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rubbish.


Gee, thanks.

> As has been stated, SDO means either all doors, or doors in front of /
> behind the panel (will open) used to operate SDO. So, whichever
> position is used, if the stop boards aren't moved, it would mean doors
> opening off the platform. Obviously this can't happen, so one or other
> power car needs to be on the platform. For obvious reasons, FGW have
> gone for the front power car to be on the platform, and the guard will
> use the 'open doors in front of where I'm working' SDO selection to
> ensure all doors on the platform will open.
> FGW say that installing SDO on old stock isn't a straight forward job
> and it was virtually impossible to install an option to asllow choice
> as to which coaches had their doors unlocked.


I'm with you up to "for obvious reasons".

What is the obvious reason for changing the current arrangement
(London-bound power car off the platform, Worcester-bound on the
platform) to this new one (front power car on the platform in either
direction)? Because it may be obvious to you but it isn't to me, or
others here in Charlbury.

Richard
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
On Dec 10, 11:00 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the obvious reason for changing the current arrangement
> (London-bound power car off the platform, Worcester-bound on the
> platform) to this new one (front power car on the platform in either
> direction)? Because it may be obvious to you but it isn't to me, or
> others here in Charlbury.


And two on-the-ground reports from this morning's 7.29:

"Well, it was the first day of the new timetable. Trains were
cancelled so this train was 10 minutes late into Oxford. Bedlam with
the selective opening doors. We all had to cram into one door, and
then walk through the whole train in order to get a seat - made worse
because of the train being cancelled beforehand and it being a Monday.
This is all because of loading only 4 bikes onto the train! This will
make the trains even later. Madness."

"It took about ten minutes for everyone to board the (delayed) 07.29
this morning, with scores of people trying to get into about 2 open
doors, then tramping all the rest of the way down the train to get
into the standard class carriages. This is utterly mad and I hope they
change it back again as soon as possible."

(from www.charlbury.info)

Richard
 
D

Dan G

Guest
On Dec 10, 11:17 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> "It took about ten minutes for everyone to board the (delayed) 07.29
> this morning, with scores of people trying to get into about 2 open
> doors, then tramping all the rest of the way down the train to get
> into the standard class carriages. This is utterly mad and I hope they
> change it back again as soon as possible."
>
> (fromwww.charlbury.info)


Charlbury is so short only one carriage can be on the platform?!


Dan
 
D

Dan G

Guest
On Dec 10, 11:43 am, Dan G <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:17 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "It took about ten minutes for everyone to board the (delayed) 07.29
> > this morning, with scores of people trying to get into about 2 open
> > doors, then tramping all the rest of the way down the train to get
> > into the standard class carriages. This is utterly mad and I hope they
> > change it back again as soon as possible."

>
> > (fromwww.charlbury.info)

>
> Charlbury is so short only one carriage can be on the platform?!


*Engages brain*. Only a single standard class carriage will have been
on the platform.


Dan
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the obvious reason for changing the current arrangement
> (London-bound power car off the platform, Worcester-bound on the
> platform) to this new one (front power car on the platform in either
> direction)? Because it may be obvious to you but it isn't to me, or
> others here in Charlbury.


And indeed, after just three days of the chaos caused by this new
arrangement, FGW have reverted ("as a trial") to the earlier
arrangement where standard class is on the platform. As one poster to
the Charlbury commuters' blog put it, "Train sailed through the
platform with first class in the front and stopped with the rear
powercar and standard class on the platform as in the past, passengers
were able to board promptly and the train departed without
delay....now what was so difficult about that?".

I gather that "Chris" is a member of the FGW Customer Panel,
supposedly representing passengers' interests. With friends like this,
who needs enemies?

Richard
 
R

Richard Fairhurst

Guest
> And indeed, after just three days of the chaos caused by this new
> arrangement, FGW have reverted ("as a trial") to the earlier
> arrangement where standard class is on the platform.


And more:

"Selective Door Opening on HSTs

"The Cotswold Line Promotion Group has been advised by FGW that, after
only 3 days of unsatisfactory performance, it is experimenting with a
different system whereby the standard class coaches are alongside
short platforms. Users may have noticed the presence at Charlbury
station on Monday and Tuesday mornings of Teresa Ceesay, the FGW
Service Delivery Manager for the Cotswold Line. She was horrified at
what she witnessed on these days and reported the matter to her senior
management. As a result, the General Manager travelled from Evesham on
one of the morning HSTs on Wednesday, and, following what he
witnessed, he arranged for the procedure to be changed, which it was
on Thursday with what appears to be a much more satisfactory outcome.
However, this is still a trial and may need further revision if other
problems emerge from it."

So "this sounds like a decision made in Swindon by someone who's never
travelled on the Cotswold Line" is spot on, given that FGW reversed
the decision as soon as one of them _did_ travel on it; and funnily
enough, "Chris" appears to have gone very quiet. Credit to FGW, at
least, for recognising the mistake and quickly putting it right.

Richard
 
C

Chris

Guest
On Dec 14, 10:14 am, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected].net> wrote:
> "Selective Door Opening on HSTs
>
> "The Cotswold Line Promotion Group has been advised byFGWthat, after
> only 3 days of unsatisfactory performance, it is experimenting with a
> different system whereby the standard class coaches are alongside
> short platforms. Users may have noticed the presence at Charlbury
> station on Monday and Tuesday mornings of Teresa Ceesay, theFGW
> Service Delivery Manager for the Cotswold Line. She was horrified at
> what she witnessed on these days and reported the matter to her senior
> management. As a result, the General Manager travelled from Evesham on
> one of the morning HSTs on Wednesday, and, following what he
> witnessed, he arranged for the procedure to be changed, which it was
> on Thursday with what appears to be a much more satisfactory outcome.
> However, this is still a trial and may need further revision if other
> problems emerge from it."
>
> So "this sounds like a decision made in Swindon by someone who's never
> travelled on the Cotswold Line" is spot on, given thatFGWreversed
> the decision as soon as one of them _did_ travel on it; and funnily
> enough, "Chris" appears to have gone very quiet. Credit toFGW, at
> least, for recognising the mistake and quickly putting it right.


Not gone quiet at all - just had a rather busy couple of days away
from a PC (bliss!)....also, I don't represent the Cotswold Line on the
Passenger Panel, but I do represent Oxford, for my sins. So I needed
to be careful that I wasn't seen to be 'stepping on toes'.

One of the results of my reported chat with FGW was the presence of
Teresa Cesay, and the General Manager following up a lot quicker than
FGW staff normally respond. I remain in regular contact with FGw, so
keep all comments coming, on here and other threads. Very useful
feedback,
 

Similar threads