"Simon Brooke" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, TP
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Chris Brady) wrote:
> >>
> >>Yeah - and when we travelled from Chichester to Victoria the evening
> >>before we had to change at Barnham because one of the new trains had
> >>broken down. Eventually after 30 minutes delay (sans any form of
> >>announcements whatsoever) we travelled in an old ex-Connex yellow slam
> >>door train. As we went through Three Bridges we noticed that there was
> >>quite a few ex-Connex slam door trains stabled in the station and
> >>sidings. Quite why they couldn't have used those for the cycles is a
> >>moot point.
> >
> > It isn't a moot point; it is very simple. Those trains are off lease,
> > and to put then back on lease would cost a lot more than any
> > additional revenue they would generate.
>
> That is the *stupidest* excuse of all. If the trains are there, standing
> idle, and the passengers are there needing the service they can
> provide, and the management system is so baroque that they can't be
> deployed, then it's time to sack the managers.
>
> Just renationalise the lot and let's get back to a railway system which
> actually works, rather than the present crazy beurocratic morass.
That may be the stupidest comment of all...
The withdrawn trains would need costly overhauls - even to run once if they
had run out of miles between overhauls or examinations.
The same rules would have applied under British Rail - a withdrawn train
without a certificate to run could not be used.
Its not "baroque" - it is the equivalent of using a car without an MOT.
which isn't legal even once - ther would be no insurance cover apart from
anything else.
The point is that the railway companies exist to provide passenger
services - and they have enough trains for that. Jamming the cycles in as
they did in the past on the old trains tended to damage the interiors and
involve costly cleaning - or they get sued by Monday commuters who get oil
on the nice suits etc.
Not what we want on our new trains which need to be in a fit state for 30
years.
I spoke to "Southern" about this yesterday. Over a year ago they spoke to
the charity concerned and told them that they wouldn't be able to carry
bikes from this year. The charity understood completely and has publicised
this in the build up to the event.
Both the charity and Southern issued notices reminding cyclists they
couldn't carry all the bikes any more before this year's event - if some
cyclists didn't read it then that may be their problem.
Given the length of time in the run up there was plenty of time to hire some
empty vans to take the bikes back by road (okay, not good for the railways,
but it was a solution) and in fact why weren't some lorry operators asked to
donate the transport as part of the charity even, allowing the cyclists to
give their train fares to the charity? The lorry owners could probably have
written the cost off as a charitable donation etc. and got a tax rebate -
and got some free publicity!
TM