Letter from DueSouth Railways to Peter Clinch

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:39:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>My new tandem can be reduced to the length of a normal bike by the
>release of two QRs and a couple of cable joiners. No dirty greasy
>parts involved.

Yes, but can the majority of tandems?

The greasy hand problem was just one a whole raft of possible problems. It may
be that none of these would concern the railway. There may be others that I
haven't thought of.

I'd have to agree that if you are talking about a train with bicycle
accomodation that consists of individual boxes, there's no reason why they can't
just say they will carry anything that fits in an x * y * z box (which is even
simpler than Peter's regulation).

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> Yes, but can the majority of tandems?

Does that matter?

> The greasy hand problem was just one a whole raft of possible problems. It may
> be that none of these would concern the railway. There may be others that I
> haven't thought of.

"A whole raft", eh? And one easily avoided by changing the fine print
so you can't disassemble it to meet the regs, but you ignored that
because it didn't fit your theory.

> I'd have to agree that if you are talking about a train with bicycle
> accomodation that consists of individual boxes, there's no reason why they can't
> just say they will carry anything that fits in an x * y * z box (which is even
> simpler than Peter's regulation).

So though you would "have to agree", you very specifically didn't,
saying it wouldn't work, it would cause a queue of tandemists wanting to
try it on, there would be irrevocable problems measuring every cycle and
it would delay trains.

I did actually bring up the idea of a box earlier this morning, but you
ignored it, showing your mind is closed.

This is an illustration of the fact that you are against whatever *I*
say, whatever it is, rather than taking the points on their own merits.
If I personally solved world hunger later this morning you'd still say
it was wrong.

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 Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:46:51 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> So, basically, you're happy to whine and rant on here 'till the cows come home,
>
>My point is to illustrate that TOCs are not in possession of Divine
>Wisdom by practical example, so those that think otherwise can see it is
>not so and revise their opinions.

So you'll whine and rant about anyting you *think* you know how to do better,
but you'll never actaully try and *do* something about it.

So you haven't really got a 'can do' attitude, you've got a 'can witter and
twitter till the cows come home' attitude.

>> but you won't spend a fraction of the time you've spent on that to contact the
>> railway company with your brilliant idea.
>
>Because it is not in my interest. Why should I?

Is that the defining thing that drives your life?

What's in it for me?

That's very sad. And you don't even mnd admitting it.

>> Spend hours and hours banging away where it can do no good
>
>What, like you are?

Yes, but I haven't got the alternative of a magic bullet to sort out the
cyclists ills that you believe you have.

Sadly, you seem to want to keep that on here because taking ten minutes to write
a letter is pointless as there's nothing in it for you.

>And how you seem to be ignoring the points I made in favour of insults
>and name calling.

I've taken to ignoring a lot of what you write because you do not live in the
real world.

Every sensible objection that is explained to you you brush aside with yet
another simplistic 'not in the real world' solution.

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:44:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:47:24 GMT, [email protected] (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.
>
>Undo two clips, release three cable joiners, move stem to one side,
>swing rear triangle under, swing front fork under. Job done. Takes
>about two minutes, no tools, wheels remain on the bike, mechanical
>bits don't touch the ground, fingers remain clean.

And this is how every tandem disassembles, is it?

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:07:31 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Yes, but can the majority of tandems?
>
>Does that matter?

Well, it would if the RC were worried about grease, because they'd be interested
in the tandem some one was trying to bring on board, rather than Guy's

>> The greasy hand problem was just one a whole raft of possible problems. It may
>> be that none of these would concern the railway. There may be others that I
>> haven't thought of.
>
>"A whole raft", eh? And one easily avoided by changing the fine print
>so you can't disassemble it to meet the regs, but you ignored that
>because it didn't fit your theory.

And how would taht be enforced. CCTV cameras all around the station with a crew
of operators looking out for people taking bits off tandems?

As always, you're not living in the real world.
>
>> I'd have to agree that if you are talking about a train with bicycle
>> accomodation that consists of individual boxes, there's no reason why they can't
>> just say they will carry anything that fits in an x * y * z box (which is even
>> simpler than Peter's regulation).
>
>So though you would "have to agree", you very specifically didn't,
>saying it wouldn't work, it would cause a queue of tandemists wanting to
>try it on, there would be irrevocable problems measuring every cycle and
>it would delay trains.

That was because I wasn't working to the "Scotrail only" scenario which didn't
really raise its head until you were soundly thrashed on the more general case.

>I did actually bring up the idea of a box earlier this morning, but you
>ignored it, showing your mind is closed.

And yet, I just wrote about the box back there!

I ignored it because that is not how the majority of stock works. We were in a
thread talking about the LBR situation, and you started wittering on about
tandems.

Natuaraly my mind was working on the stock that was relevant to the thread.

>This is an illustration of the fact that you are against whatever *I*
>say, whatever it is, rather than taking the points on their own merits.
> If I personally solved world hunger later this morning you'd still say
>it was wrong.

This is an illustration of how you manage to make an argument even when someone
is agreeing with you.

ROFLMAO!

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> And this is how every tandem disassembles, is it?

And that question is relevant how? Guy's does, yet it is still banned
from Scotrail services unless he boxes it up, even though it takes up
less space than two quite legal solos. How does such a rule help anyone?

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 Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:22:59 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>And that question is relevant how? Guy's does, yet it is still banned
>from Scotrail services unless he boxes it up, even though it takes up
>less space than two quite legal solos. How does such a rule help anyone?

Ask the railway company, and do your fellow cyclists some good rather than just
indulging in mental masturbation on here.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> So you'll whine and rant about anyting you *think* you know how to do better,
> but you'll never actaully try and *do* something about it.

If it doesn't affect me personally, why should I?

> So you haven't really got a 'can do' attitude, you've got a 'can witter and
> twitter till the cows come home' attitude.

I don't believe I've claimed I have a "can do" attitude, just that you
have a "can't do" attitude.

> Is that the defining thing that drives your life?
>
> What's in it for me?
>
> That's very sad. And you don't even mnd admitting it.

Everyone is basically selfish to some degree. Even though I've just
increased my monthly standing order to Oxfam by 50%, I still spend far
more than I give to them on books, CDs, fancy bikes etc.for Me Me Me
that I can full well live without while people are starving and
homeless. Everyone's selfish to some degree, and not admitting it is
just kidding yourself.

> Yes, but I haven't got the alternative of a magic bullet to sort out the
> cyclists ills that you believe you have.

You seem to think that it is necessary to be able to do everything
before you can do anything. That is not the case, yet it paralyses you
from thinking anything can ever be done.

> Sadly, you seem to want to keep that on here because taking ten minutes to write
> a letter is pointless as there's nothing in it for you.

Yup.

> I've taken to ignoring a lot of what you write because you do not live in the
> real world.
>
> Every sensible objection that is explained to you you brush aside with yet
> another simplistic 'not in the real world' solution.

You wave your arms and brush it aside as not in the real world, but you
never engage with the question so you have no idea whether it is or not.
For example, your objection that if a train is cancelled there will be
no slack in the system if everything is fully booked was met with the
point that that is *always* the case on any existing service's Last
Train, but the fact that that happens daily was answered by you clapping
your hands over your ears and telling me to stop whining. The evidence
is stacking up that you don't answer my points because you're incapable
of doing so, resorting to name calling instead.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> Ask the railway company, and do your fellow cyclists some good rather than just
> indulging in mental masturbation on here.

But you have such easy answers for everything, and you're right here...

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> And how would taht be enforced. CCTV cameras all around the station with a crew
> of operators looking out for people taking bits off tandems?
>
> As always, you're not living in the real world.

It is you, I fear, not living on Planet Earth. The system at present
allows people to bend the rules but it doesn't seem to be killing
anyone. As you pointed out yourself earlier, most people are actually
reasonable about these things and follow the rules. Where rules are
unambiguous they will take less liberty with them.

> That was because I wasn't working to the "Scotrail only" scenario which didn't
> really raise its head until you were soundly thrashed on the more general case.

That didn't raise it's head until, errrr, straight away when I said up
front that was just what I was doing.

> I ignored it because that is not how the majority of stock works. We were in a
> thread talking about the LBR situation, and you started wittering on about
> tandems.

I was using a specific example that Really Happened to a pal that I
quite specifically grounded to Scotrail to show TOCs aren't in
possession of Divine Wisdom when it comes to bikes, even with their
Decades Of Experience.

> Natuaraly my mind was working on the stock that was relevant to the thread.

Naturally you ignored what I'd actually *written*, and worked with what
you assumed I might have written, because you're fuelled by anger and
resentment towards me at the moment rather than taking points on merit.

And one of my points is that you don't have to solve *everything* to
improve /anything/, so in at least a limited case you have "had to
agree" my scheme is sensible, while at the same time dismissing it as
being ridiculous, unworkable, ill-thought out and out of the Real World
because it doesn't solve every possible problem across the whole Network.

> This is an illustration of how you manage to make an argument even when someone
> is agreeing with you.

I'm just following your excellent example...

Which is it: do I actually have a point you "have to agree" with, or do
I not, because there is a "whole raft of problems" and I am "not living
in the real world"? Can't have it both ways, at least in the Real World...

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 Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:34:28 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> So you'll whine and rant about anyting you *think* you know how to do better,
>> but you'll never actaully try and *do* something about it.
>
>If it doesn't affect me personally, why should I?

That says it all. really, doesn't it?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> That says it all. really, doesn't it?

Seems to say you can't answer the points raised and are resorting to
name calling to make up for a lack of substance in your arguments.

And not for the first time, either.

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 Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:37:57 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Ask the railway company, and do your fellow cyclists some good rather than just
>> indulging in mental masturbation on here.
>
>But you have such easy answers for everything, and you're right here...

Yes, but I can't modify the TOC's T&C's can I, you ****?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> Yes, but I can't modify the TOC's T&C's can I, you ****?

You've still not regained, your temper, I see. That's probably why
you're incapable of being rational while replying to my posts.

Of course it would be silly to waste the valuable time of the TOCs if my
thoughts are really /so/ lame, so you'd actually be helping everyone if
you actually addressed the points raised rather than just calling me a
"****", or somesuch.

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/

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:11:08 GMT, [email protected] (Steven)
wrote:

>>Undo two clips, release three cable joiners, move stem to one side,
>>swing rear triangle under, swing front fork under. Job done. Takes
>>about two minutes, no tools, wheels remain on the bike, mechanical
>>bits don't touch the ground, fingers remain clean.

>And this is how every tandem disassembles, is it?

Do KUATB! It is an example of why a rule that says "no tandems" is
overly simplistic, and why your supposed justification is simply
wrong. Tandems exist which pack simply and cleanly. You are content
that they be banned on the basis of preconceptions regarding other
tandems.

The Hase Pino also becomes no longer than a standard bike with no
grease-monkey work involved. Another tandem was recently advertised
which is only a couple of inches longer than a solo anyway, the stoker
seat is positioned over the back wheel.

How many tandems have you owned or ridden? Or even seen?

Incidentally, there is a small but thriving community of blind and
disabled tandemists. A no tandem policy is arguably discriminatory
since it means only able-bodied people can take bikes on trains.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:48:42 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> And how would taht be enforced. CCTV cameras all around the station with a crew
>> of operators looking out for people taking bits off tandems?
>>
>> As always, you're not living in the real world.
>
>It is you, I fear, not living on Planet Earth. The system at present
>allows people to bend the rules but it doesn't seem to be killing
>anyone. As you pointed out yourself earlier, most people are actually
>reasonable about these things and follow the rules. Where rules are
>unambiguous they will take less liberty with them.

No Peter, you *specifically* stated modifying the fine print to disallow
dissembling the bike.

So that suggestion was wholly dishonest if your response to a query about
enforcement of such a rule is "Oh, it doesn't matter".

>Naturally you ignored what I'd actually *written*, and worked with what
>you assumed I might have written, because you're fuelled by anger and
>resentment towards me at the moment rather than taking points on merit.

Oh, do get over yourself.

>And one of my points is that you don't have to solve *everything* to
>improve /anything/, so in at least a limited case you have "had to
>agree" my scheme is sensible, while at the same time dismissing it as
>being ridiculous, unworkable, ill-thought out and out of the Real World
>because it doesn't solve every possible problem across the whole Network.

No, I said that it is workable on the TOC in question, provided they are
prepared for any corollory problems that may7 crop up with people disembling
bikes.

I can see three seperate problems on Scotrail, reduced to one if you prohibit
dissembly of the bike.

1) Dirt - problems with grease.
2) Delays whilst someone who hasn't measured their bike properly tries to get it
to fit, or argues with the guard when he says it won't fit.
3) Delays whilst someone who's bike can't *quite* get in starts to dismantle it
while the train is delayed.

Only number 2 is relevant if you disallow dissembly, but for (1) you would need
to enforce the rule against disassembly.

I suspect that (2) is a good enough reason for them to refrain from changing the
rules.

>> This is an illustration of how you manage to make an argument even when someone
>> is agreeing with you.
>
>I'm just following your excellent example...
>
>Which is it: do I actually have a point you "have to agree" with, or do
>I not, because there is a "whole raft of problems" and I am "not living
>in the real world"? Can't have it both ways, at least in the Real World...

There is one point that in a very specific set of circumstances *might* have
some merit (but see (2) above).

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:32:47 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> That says it all. really, doesn't it?
>
>Seems to say you can't answer the points raised and are resorting to
>name calling to make up for a lack of substance in your arguments.
>
>And not for the first time, either.

Stop ducking the issue.

All you're concerned about is "is there anything in for me?".

'nuff said.

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:38:30 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Yes, but I can't modify the TOC's T&C's can I, you ****?
>
>You've still not regained, your temper, I see. That's probably why
>you're incapable of being rational while replying to my posts.

I don't need to lose my temper to call a snivelling whining idiot who won't even
consider doing speding ten minutes writing a letter because there's nothing in
it for him, a selfish little ****.

I'm just cooly stating a fact.

>
>Of course it would be silly to waste the valuable time of the TOCs if my
>thoughts are really /so/ lame, so you'd actually be helping everyone if
>you actually addressed the points raised rather than just calling me a
>"****", or somesuch.

But since you are, by your own admission, too selfish to do anything if there's
nothing in it for you, the TOC's are going to remain blissfully unaware of your
ill thought through schemes, aren't they?

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:43:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:11:08 GMT, [email protected] (Steven)
>wrote:
>
>>>Undo two clips, release three cable joiners, move stem to one side,
>>>swing rear triangle under, swing front fork under. Job done. Takes
>>>about two minutes, no tools, wheels remain on the bike, mechanical
>>>bits don't touch the ground, fingers remain clean.
>
>>And this is how every tandem disassembles, is it?
>
>Do KUATB! It is an example of why a rule that says "no tandems" is
>overly simplistic, and why your supposed justification is simply
>wrong. Tandems exist which pack simply and cleanly. You are content
>that they be banned on the basis of preconceptions regarding other
>tandems.

No, Guy.

The problem for the railway company is that they have to find a workable
compromise.

It's unfortunate that there are people with small or collapsible tandems that
get caught up in the general rule that is based on the railway companies
perception of what the typical tandem is.

I suspect that unlike Peter, you are not too selfish to spend a bit of time
helping fellow cyclists, and with you obviously good knowledge, you are in a
very good position to write to the relevant TOC.

They probably will at least consider the proposal, although I suspect they would
be worried about trains being delayed whilst borderline cases tried to get their
machines to fit.

As to some one person bikes now getting very large, I think you'll find that the
TOC's won't do anything about that until it becomes a problem for them.

If they suddenly find that there are delays/arguments cropping up because of
oversized bikes, they will *have* to respond to that situation.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steven wrote:

> No Peter, you *specifically* stated modifying the fine print to disallow
> dissembling the bike.
>
> So that suggestion was wholly dishonest if your response to a query about
> enforcement of such a rule is "Oh, it doesn't matter".

Your argument seems to reduce to: you say so and so, therefore... Hatstand!

The rules as they stand are subject to the same problems of wilful
breaking, but are more restrictive for more typical customers who follow
rules. Less ambiguous rules will allow the train to be better utilised
and a greater possibility of an overall rise in customer satisfaction.

> Oh, do get over yourself.

Oh, do get over your temper tantrum.

> 1) Dirt - problems with grease.

Which problem exists with current rules for non-tandems.

> 2) Delays whilst someone who hasn't measured their bike properly tries to get it
> to fit, or argues with the guard when he says it won't fit.

Which problem exists with current rules for non-tandems.

> 3) Delays whilst someone who's bike can't *quite* get in starts to dismantle it
> while the train is delayed.

Which problem exists with current rules for non-tandems.

> Only number 2 is relevant if you disallow dissembly, but for (1) you would need
> to enforce the rule against disassembly.
>
> I suspect that (2) is a good enough reason for them to refrain from changing the
> rules.

That's because you think everything is impossible, but as I've pointed
out several times that problem already exists with the current rules
where applied to outsize solos.

> There is one point that in a very specific set of circumstances *might* have
> some merit (but see (2) above).

I did, and I repeated the point I've already made several times before
in response but which you *still* have not answered it. The obvious
conclusion is because you can't.

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/