Steven wrote:
>
> The railway company will look at potential problems and it may (or may not)
> decide that encouraging a type of passenger that is likely to board the train
> with greasy bike components and greasy hands is not something that is in the
> best interests of providing a pleasant service to their core customers.
Once again your "can't do" attitude gets in the way of solving problems.
My basic idea is that cycles should go on according to size, not
things only indirectly connected such as number of seats or wheels. The
thing about removing wheels etc. was in the fine print and we can change
the fine print without changing the basic, fundamental idea or the
reasoning behind it. So rather than say, "we can't have people removing
things, throw the whole idea out as unworkable", we say "we can't have
people removing things, change the fine print to say that". And that
way we still get to carry compact tandems, which don't obstruct people,
or semi-folding trikes a GT3, which wouldn't obstruct people, and we
don't carry outsize solos like an 8 Freight or Hase Tagun that may well
obstruct people. And no greasy parts more than we have at present. So
we end up with a system that is fairer for all
Your other hang up about my idea was some nonsense that every cycle has
to be measured. I'm still not at all sure why, but let's look at a
similar case. Airline carry-on has to fit under the seat in front or in
the overhead lockers. People take all sorts of things on and some,
inevitably, don't fit, resulting in delays as it is sent to the hold.
To solve this, do the airline companies throw up their hands and say "no
carry on baggage, it can cause delays!"? Do they specify a restrictive
range of luggage based on overall type? Do they publish a list of bags
they have individually measured (or read the measurements from a spec
sheet) that are approved? Or perhaps they put a box by the checkout
line with a notice that says "if your bag fits in here and weighs less
than x Kg it is acceptable as hand luggage". The latter, IME, so how
about transferring that scheme to what we're working on? If we paint a
box on the platform of the same size as our loadspace dimensions and put
up a notice saying "if your cycle fits in this box it is eligible be
carried" then people can check it in seconds if they haven't already
done it at home, working from the published figures. Put a hard stand
at each end and it's even more black and white what will fit.
These things only took a few seconds thought on top of the few seconds
the original took, but you are so determined to throw out *anything* I
say and your mind is so heavily set on saying "No!" that such simple
refinements are beyond you.
Ultimately a scheme along these lines could give a consistent and
workable approach to *any* item, not just cycles, which could only be a
good thing for the TOCs. But it doesn't have to do that, it's just it's
a flexible, simple and open scheme that adapts easily that *can* help
give a consistent approach to anything carried on. At present on
Scotrail there's guaranteed space for 2 bikes, but why should bikes have
precedence over, say, large flatpack wardrobes? Or stuffed hippopotami?
My scheme enables you to get rid of that bias, if you want, by
treating things purely according to size rather than by function, which
is irrelevant to other passengers. Or if cycles are considered worth
prioritising (as they are at present, with that guaranteed 2 spaces),
that's no problem either.
You clearly have a working imagination, or you wouldn't be able to come
up with such amazing reasons how anything that the TOCs don't already do
won't work. Try thinking in terms of how things might be better instead
could be quite a revelation.
So why don't I take this to Scotrail? Because it's better for
individuals such as me and my tandeming friend to have bendable rules
that we can work around with a bit of initiative, though a rule based on
what would actually *fit* would almost certainly make more sense to the
TOC. And yesterday you were suggesting I maybe made up the story about
the tandem, but a quick Google reveals I've been telling the *same*
story since 1996! And you thought it was just for you? Get over
yourself! (and see
http://tinyurl.com/7s5ue if you don't believe that).
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/
