Letter from DueSouth Railways to Peter Clinch

[Steven]

Dear Mr Clinch

Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.

I have circulated your idea for changing the cycle rule from "No Tandems" to one
of measuring all cycles, and list the responses below.

Please bear in mind that cycles form an *very* small part of our customer base,
and we have to expend most of our efforts in ensuring our core customers service
obligations are met.


Station Management

An interesting idea, but if we let them do that, it will mean that, to be fair,
*all* bikes have to be measured. This will in any case be impossible at unmanned
or singly manned (i.e. most) stations, but if the guards are happy to it, fair
enough.

Our only objection would be that once you allow bikes to be carried according to
measurement, and also allow parts to be removed, then you would obviously have
cyclists bringing cycles and partially dismantling them to get them carried.

We don't really want dirty greasy cycle parts being carried through the
stations, and we would not really want people disassembling them on the
platforms (except where somewhere could be set aside for the task).

Also, if cyclists *are* removing parts to get their bikes to fit, they will
likely end up having dirty, greasy hands which will make the stations unpleasant
for other passengers.


Conductors

An interesting idea, but if we let them do that, it will mean that, to be fair,
*all* bikes have to be measured. It's not something the conductors could
undertake since we are expected to get the train started, on average, 30 seconds
after stopping, and we could be in any part of the train (up to 12 carriages),
and so could be several hundred feet away from any cyclist, and there could be
several trying to get on. The resultant delays would, I'm sure be completely
unaceptable.

Also, if we were expected to perform the measurements, we would be bound, at
times, to get our hands dirty, and would then need to clean them before
interacting with the public. This would certainly curtail our other customer
service and revenue protection capabilities.


Legal

Tricky.

If you start to allow carriage on the basis of measurement, there are bound to
be arguments. The length is quite straightforward, but the width is trickier.

I can forsee arguments where one operative measures a bike and allows carriage,
and another, perhaps measuring it more carefully, doesn't, and an argument
ensues. We have health and safety obligation to consider wrt aggresive
passengers.

I also note what the station management people mentioned about people taking
bikes to pieces. This is obviously the first thing someone would do if their
bike didn't fit.

Would we hold the train up whilst they did that?

Then there is the problem of stowage of removed wheels. If these were left on
the floor as the would need to be in a lot of stock, it would only be a matter
of time before someone fell on one and injured themselves. We would then be held
partially liable, because we would be considered to have encouraged the carriage
of loose wheels by the wording of our regulations.

Also, it would make the carriages messy.

Overall, would advise: No.


Financial

Interesting.

Would require quite a lot of organisation and work.

If this does not lead to increases carriage, then I can see no point in it.

If on the other hand, it *does* increase carriage, then the workload would
increase even more. We could then start charging for cycles (after all, they do
take up much the same space as a passenger and are extra work). Standard single
fare would seem a fair starting point.

In summary, if MIS feel that there would be enough new custom generated, then we
would have no ojection, provided that all cycles paid a fare that reflected the
space they take up and the extra work involved (particularly if we moved to a
measurment based system).

--------------------------------------

Overall

As you can see, there are significant problems to implementing your scheme, and
at the present time I do not believe that it would be commercially viable to
offer such a service.

We hope this is not too much of an inconvenience to you, and hope you will
contact us again with any other ideas you may have.

Yours etc.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:
> Dear Mr Clinch
>
> Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
> us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.
>
> I have circulated your idea for changing the cycle rule from "No Tandems" to one
> of measuring all cycles, and list the responses below.

Dear Mr. Etc., you've missed the point, I'm afraid, as I've never
suggested you need to measure cycles! What I suggested was that you
publish a load space dimension and say you won't carry anything that
exceeds it. Cyclists are then free to assess their own cycles, much as
they are at the moment where they fall between your categories, only
with far more exact specifications so both cyclists and your staff can
clearly tell what will be carried or not.

> Please bear in mind that cycles form an *very* small part of our customer base,
> and we have to expend most of our efforts in ensuring our core customers service
> obligations are met.

Despite that point, your website publicly states a welcome for them. If
they are not welcome, you should say so. I hope it is your policy to
maximise satisfaction to as many of your customers as you reasonably
can, even where they are in a minority.

> Station Management
>
> An interesting idea, but if we let them do that, it will mean that, to be fair,
> *all* bikes have to be measured. This will in any case be impossible at unmanned
> or singly manned (i.e. most) stations, but if the guards are happy to it, fair
> enough.

Only if you don't bother reading what I suggested. The point is that
the load space's own dimensions will limit what will fit in it, and if
something doesn't fit then you don't need to measure it to find out.
However, in unusual cases a cyclist will be able to assess in advance
whether their cycle will fit, which will benefit both your own staff and
the cyclists.

> Our only objection would be that once you allow bikes to be carried according to
> measurement, and also allow parts to be removed, then you would obviously have
> cyclists bringing cycles and partially dismantling them to get them carried.

Which they do in any case, of course, so this objection wouldn't change
from the present policy.

> We don't really want dirty greasy cycle parts being carried through the
> stations

Although that already happens with your existing policy, where solo
cycles are pushed through the stations as they are. Cyclists have no
more wish of getting themselves covered in grease than your staff, so it
is not unreasonable to expect a little care from them in transporting
any such parts.

> Also, if cyclists *are* removing parts to get their bikes to fit, they will
> likely end up having dirty, greasy hands which will make the stations unpleasant
> for other passengers.

I take it workmen are banned from your stations? And please see my
previous paragraph. Unfortunately your lack of understanding of modern
cycles has misled to think that all such work requires getting dirty. I
am also intrigued as to why you feel cyclists are incapable of washing
their hands.

But the main objection to this line of argument is that it is no
different from the current case as it stands. Thus, reasons are clearly
being invented for no reason beyond obstructiveness.

> An interesting idea, but if we let them do that, it will mean that, to be fair,
> *all* bikes have to be measured.

Gosh, it's almost as if this letter was actually written by a single
person who really doesn't understand what I, and more significantly
*he*, is talking about. No bicycles have to be measured at all. If
they are within the measurements, they will fit in the load space and
can be carried. If they are beyond them, they will not fit and thus
clearly cannot be carried.

> Also, if we were expected to perform the measurements, we would be bound, at
> times, to get our hands dirty, and would then need to clean them before
> interacting with the public. This would certainly curtail our other customer
> service and revenue protection capabilities.

But as already pointed out, no measurement is necessary.

> If you start to allow carriage on the basis of measurement, there are bound to
> be arguments. The length is quite straightforward, but the width is trickier.

Can you really not understand the concept of width? An extra sentence
may need to be tagged onto the detail footnote, but not more. Perhaps a
total handlebar width and a maximum non-handlebar width of the cycle
would suffice, but I'm sure someone with decades of experience loading
trains can come up with something!

> I also note what the station management people mentioned about people taking
> bikes to pieces. This is obviously the first thing someone would do if their
> bike didn't fit.

Which is the case as at present, so there is no change here.

> Would we hold the train up whilst they did that?

There would be no requirement to do so, but as has been pointed out,
this is the case at present.

> Then there is the problem of stowage of removed wheels. If these were left on
> the floor as the would need to be in a lot of stock

need? Really? I can think of very few trains where a bicycle wheel
would not be carried as a separate item due to its problematical nature,
so I don't see why it becomes a problem now. Perhaps you could comment?

> Financial
>
> Interesting.
>
> Would require quite a lot of organisation and work.

Such as? Changing the published policy (which according to posted
statements is under constant review and liable to change at short
notice) and measuring the load spaces is all that is needed.

> If this does not lead to increases carriage, then I can see no point in it.

Customer satisfaction is not a worthwhile goal in your company? I find
that difficult to believe.

> If on the other hand, it *does* increase carriage, then the workload would
> increase even more. We could then start charging for cycles (after all, they do
> take up much the same space as a passenger and are extra work). Standard single
> fare would seem a fair starting point.

As you have pointed out, cycles are a very small part of the business
and this change will only affect a minority of cyclists. By your very
own arguments, it is a non-issue, though it does make it fairer for that
small minority who are still your customers and who you thus want to
satisfy as much as possible.

> Overall
>
> As you can see, there are significant problems to implementing your scheme, and
> at the present time I do not believe that it would be commercially viable to
> offer such a service.

As I can see, my scheme has been misinterpreted (it seems almost
wilfully!) and due to your "can't do" attitude and manufacture of non
reasons you have decided to do nothing because moaning is more in your
interests than increasing customer satisfaction. Perhaps your company
has stupid employees too, since they seem very hung up on the need to
measure everything...

> We hope this is not too much of an inconvenience to you, and hope you will
> contact us again with any other ideas you may have.

Doesn't inconvenience me at all, I don't use the trains when I have a
problem load because the rules make it too bloody awkward, and so you
lose custom every time I need to do that. Still, no skin off my nose.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:09:09 GMT someone who may be
[email protected] (Steven) wrote this:-

>Also, if cyclists *are* removing parts to get their bikes to fit, they will
>likely end up having dirty, greasy hands which will make the stations unpleasant
>for other passengers.

However, the railways seem perfectly happy about passengers with
dirty, greasy and smelly hands from beefburger "restaurants" at the
station.



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

 

[Steven]

Dear Mr Clinch

Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.

With respect to your observations, I would just say that you seem to be basing
your observations on the rolling stock used by another region.

Our trains have no dedicated cycle carriage space, and so one could (although it
would clearly be unsafe to do so) entrain something that would only fit
diagonally across a vestibule.

Thus, in order to change from a system of allowing cycles based on type to one
based on measurement, it would indeed be necessary to measure each bike.

Despite your protestations, we feel that the inevitable dismantling of longer
bikes *would* lead to more grease and dirt being deposited around our stations.

Therefore, I'm afraid all our objections still stand, and we are unable to
ammend our carriage conditions at this time.

We will be happy to hear from you in the future, but would suggest that perhaps
you do a little research into the way companies other than your local franchise
operate, as this could save you from wasting your time with ideas that are
unworkable because of different operating practices.


Yours etc.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
> us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.
>
> With respect to your observations, I would just say that you seem to be basing
> your observations on the rolling stock used by another region.

Deary me... in order to show that decades of experience is not really
all there is I very specifically took First Scotrail's cycle policy
(even quoting it for you to see) as a basis for how a TOC doesn't
necessarily Know It All and worked from that. And FS's trains *do* have
dedicated cycle spaces.

The principle is that a TOC's judgments may not be as perfect as you
make out. And yes, though I was originally commenting on London to
Brighton I stepped outside it for a specific illustration of a
principle, using the TOC I'm most familiar with. But despite
complaining I'm the person being Bloody Awkward, you're just being
Bloody Awkward, and rather pathetic.

Just another way of typing "la la la I can't hear you", really.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:10:24 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:09:09 GMT someone who may be
>[email protected] (Steven) wrote this:-
>
>>Also, if cyclists *are* removing parts to get their bikes to fit, they will
>>likely end up having dirty, greasy hands which will make the stations unpleasant
>>for other passengers.
>
>However, the railways seem perfectly happy about passengers with
>dirty, greasy and smelly hands from beefburger "restaurants" at the
>station.

Yes, disgusting, isn't it.

I suppose that grease isn't black, though (at least not until it's mixed with
several hundred layers of similar grease - shudder).

 

[Steven]

Dear Mr Clinch

Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.

As I said, your responses to our observations were all based on rolling stock
that we do not use.

As you have not addressed any of our objections as they apply to the rolling
stock that actually runs on our part of the network, I can, I'm afraid, only
reitterate that your ideas are unworkable and we will not be ammending our terms
of carriage at this time.

Please feel free to get in touch if you have any further ideas that would
actually work with the stock we use.

Yours etc.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> As I said, your responses to our observations were all based on rolling stock
> that we do not use.

Can't answer, won't answer, look like a pillock trying to get around the
fact as it's obvious you've been Very Stupid in public.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Steven]

Dear Mr Clinch

Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers write to
us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our service.

We took the trouble to look at your proposal, but, because you had based the
entire idea on rolling stock from another region, and appear to be unfamiliar
with out working practices, they were not practicable.

We outlined our objections, but all you did in reply was talk about operations
as they relate to another carrier, and dismiss the other objections we made
concerning, amongst other things, the cleanliness of our stations and trains.

I reitterate; your suggestion is not deemed either practical or reasonable, and
we will not be changing our terms of carriage at this time.

 

[Andrew Yarnwood]

> >Also, if cyclists *are* removing parts to get their bikes to fit, they will
> >likely end up having dirty, greasy hands which will make the stations unpleasant
> >for other passengers.
>
> However, the railways seem perfectly happy about passengers with
> dirty, greasy and smelly hands from beefburger "restaurants" at the
> station.

Very true.

Why can't something be done to keep anti-social people from stinking
up the trains with their fast "food"? Why is this any more acceptable
than littering? (Of course fast food eaters are typically also the
worst litterers on the trains too.)

 

[Tony Raven]

Steven wrote:
> Dear Mr Clinch
>
> Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers
> write to us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our
> service.
>

Paraphrased as "Ugggg. Nasty horrrible messy bicycle thingys. Don't
let them anywhere near us or our railways. I touched one a week ago and
I'm still scrubbing my hands trying to get their horrible filth off of
me. TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME"

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Tony Raven]

Steven wrote:
>
> I reitterate; your suggestion is not deemed either practical or
> reasonable, and we will not be changing our terms of carriage at this
> time.
>

Personally I'd just bung the tandem on if it will fit. After all their
ticket inspectors are probably 12 carriages away and anxious to get the
train away in 30 seconds so unlikely to be able to stop you. Being able
to talk convincingly in a rare foreign tongue without understanding a
word of English might help if they do try to throw you off ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:49:00 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally I'd just bung the tandem on if it will fit. After all their
>ticket inspectors are probably 12 carriages away and anxious to get the
>train away in 30 seconds so unlikely to be able to stop you.

The only trouble with that approach is that you cannot guarantee it will work.

I think this is what informs a lot of certain train companie's reticence to
offer a flexible approach.

It would be very easy if they could just say "bikes *may* be carried at the
guards discretion, but they realise that is not a lot of help for people
planning journies.

So they have to be more rigorous in setting rules so that they can at least
provide *some* service that people can rely on (as far as you can ever rely on
British trains).

> Being able
>to talk convincingly in a rare foreign tongue without understanding a
>word of English might help ...

Worked a treat for me in Egypt where the various touts never leave you alone for
ten minutes at a time.

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:43:50 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>> Dear Mr Clinch
>>
>> Thank you for your letter. We always appreciate it when our customers
>> write to us, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our
>> service.
>>
>
>Paraphrased as "Ugggg. Nasty horrrible messy bicycle thingys. Don't
>let them anywhere near us or our railways. I touched one a week ago and
>I'm still scrubbing my hands trying to get their horrible filth off of
>me. TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME"

Obviously train companies have to accept that people are going to bring all
sorts of dirty things onto their stations and trains.

The problem with Peter's ill though out scheme is that it would just about
*guarantee* that you would get a sucession of people bringing tandems and
removing the wheels so that they would fit the specified maximum length.

And being realistic, removing a bicycle wheel *is* likely to get your hands
dirtier than most activities you might get up to on a railway station.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> I reitterate; your suggestion is not deemed either practical or reasonable, and
> we will not be changing our terms of carriage at this time.

Gosh, *another* way of saying "la la la I can't hear you". How many
more do you have? You've been quite inventive with them today. Still
think everything needs to be measured? <chortle!>

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

Steven wrote:
>
> The problem with Peter's ill though out scheme is that it would just about
> *guarantee* that you would get a sucession of people bringing tandems and
> removing the wheels so that they would fit the specified maximum length.
>

If it's ill thought out then it curious that if you go to a train
station in Switzerland or Finland and ask for a ticket for a tandem they
ask how many. Its not the ability that's lacking, its the will.

> And being realistic, removing a bicycle wheel *is* likely to get your hands
> dirtier than most activities you might get up to on a railway station.
>

Rubbish. I remove wheels from my tandems fairly often - every time I
put them on the car rack in fact - and don't have a problem


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:54:05 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> I reitterate; your suggestion is not deemed either practical or reasonable, and
>> we will not be changing our terms of carriage at this time.
>
>Gosh, *another* way of saying "la la la I can't hear you".

We did hear you, but you didn't say anything new.

You made an ass of yourself by trying to get smart using the wrong type of
rolling stock to respond to the objections raised.

Since this was pointed out to you you you have done nothing but throw general
insults around.

>Still
>think everything needs to be measured? <chortle!>

You haven't explained how the regulation you proposed could be enforced on
rolling stock where cycles travel in coach vestibules without measuring the
bikes.

That is one of the main reasons your simplstic and ill thought out proposal is
just that: simplstic and ill thought out.

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:57:20 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>>
>> The problem with Peter's ill though out scheme is that it would just about
>> *guarantee* that you would get a sucession of people bringing tandems and
>> removing the wheels so that they would fit the specified maximum length.
>>
>
>If it's ill thought out then it curious that if you go to a train
>station in Switzerland or Finland and ask for a ticket for a tandem they
>ask how many. Its not the ability that's lacking, its the will.

Firstly, the scheme in question is that of allowing bike by measurement rather
than type. That has sod all to do with what happens in Switzerland.

Secondly, there has been no disagreement that it is a lack of 'will' if you
like. The railway companies have made various decisions about how than can
accomodate cycles, based on their operating circumstances and market awareness.

This varies from 'just turn up and load it on' to 'no way'.

But each railway company operates under different conditions, and the conditions
in Switzerland are different again.

>> And being realistic, removing a bicycle wheel *is* likely to get your hands
>> dirtier than most activities you might get up to on a railway station.
>>
>
>Rubbish. I remove wheels from my tandems fairly often - every time I
>put them on the car rack in fact - and don't have a problem

Unfortunately, the railway companies are likely to consider the more general
case.

Just because you can add and remove wheels without getting your hands dirty
doesn't mean that everyone, or even most people can.

You can do what Peter does, and just poo poo any and all objections, and you may
even persuade some people here that you make sense.

Unfortunately, if you actually want to change things rather than just whine
about how awefully cyclists are treated by the railways, you need to persuade
the railway companies.

And I can guarantee that if you try to do that with responses such as "Rubbish.
I remove wheels from my tandems fairly often - every time I put them on the car
rack in fact - and don't have a problem", you'll get pretty short shrift.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> You made an ass of yourself by trying to get smart using the wrong type of
> rolling stock to respond to the objections raised.

I did nothing of the sort. I started very specifically with
Scotrail's cycle policy (and quoted it) and then set out to show
how it might be changed.

If anyone made an ass of themselves it would be DueSouth's staff
with their decades of experience who can't even recognise their own
carriages and spent some time commenting on a proposal that didn't
apply to them.

> Since this was pointed out to you you you have done nothing but throw general
> insults around.

What I've done is pointed out where I started (that would be
Scotrail's stated policy) and what I was setting out to
demonstrate. If it's really *so* stupid then you shouldn't have
any trouble at all shotting it down in flames from the point of
view of Scotrail stock, with a designated "facilities area" in
which bikes are stored. Can you do that? Or will you just try and
weasel your way out of it by pretending I was talking about
something different?

> You haven't explained how the regulation you proposed could be enforced on
> rolling stock where cycles travel in coach vestibules without measuring the
> bikes.

But since I'm only working from Scotrail's stock, where cycles have
to be stored in "facilities areas", that is irrelevant. But even
if that were not the case it's still not a problem: if it fits,
then it fits, and if doesn't, it won't. This will be self evident
because if it doesn't fit, you can't get it in.

> That is one of the main reasons your simplstic and ill thought out proposal is
> just that: simplstic and ill thought out.

Simple, yes, but not simplistic. You still haven't caught on to
the idea that you don't need to measure something to see if it fits
in a space. Can I fit this chocolate bar in my mouth? I don't
know... will I have to measure my mouth and the chocolate bar to be
sure, or can I just try putting it in? That may be too simple for
you, because you're so insistent that everything is complicated,
but it needn't be so.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

Steven wrote:
>
> We did hear you, but you didn't say anything new.
>
> You made an ass of yourself by trying to get smart using the wrong
> type of rolling stock to respond to the objections raised.
>

Sigh. It seems the railways are still in the era of the customers are
a nuisance to be tolerated only if they have to be. What would you
think if the shop responded to your request to buy something with a
diatribe about how you didn't understand the problems they had with
stock control or a hotel told you your prebooked room was taken and not
that thye were sorry but that you did not understand how difficult load
management was for them? Because that's exactly how you are reacting.
Your problems are your problems and should not become your customers
problems. No wonder the railways have such a dreadful reputation in the UK.



--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon