On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:07 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

And thus lots of multipurpose space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks.
The guard's van is not a solution to every problem,

Roof rack?

On the third rail sections, anyway.

especially where it leaves wheelchair users travelling in unpleasant
conditions, bicycles away from their owners (I wouldn't like to leave
mine unattended on the NLL) and fewer seats than could otherwise be
provided for the peaks, when said bicycles aren't allowed and kitchen
sinks may be frowned upon.

I'll say it again, if we're going to encourage people to use public
transport (and I accept not everyone believes in that idea) then we need
to make it practical for people to use. That means they have to be able
to bring their baggage (in the widest sense of that word) and find
somewhere to stow it. Whether that space is a guards van is not the
point - I was simply trying to make the point, not suggest it as the
only solution. The real issue is two fold (1) there has to be enough
stock to make it feasible and (2) that stock has to be designed in such
a way as to accommodate bulky and unusually sized items. In my view a
simple train with any form of seating (logitudinal or transverse) and a
wheelchair space that might be availabel for other items doesn't cut the
mustard.

May i suggest that there's a question of degree here? There's a difference
between a train that can carry bikes, kitchen units, washing machines,
seaman's chests, etc, and one that can carry beds, grand pianos,
motorcycles with sidecars, etc. Loads of the former size could be
accomodated in the vestibules of a C-stock-like train (provided there
weren't poles in the way), as Neil says. Loads of the latter size could
not, as you, i think, say. Really, i think you're in vigorously agreement.

There's obviously a tradeoff between the goods-carrying ability of a train
and its passenger-carrying ability. We may currently be too far towards
the latter, but to go much beyond the C stock case is to sacrifice too
much passenger capacity.

Personally, i think the acid test should be whether a train can handle an
ISO-sized pallet, with cart, and still let people get on and off. People
rarely move things bigger than pallet-sized by hand, and a pallet is a
nice standard size.

I will admit to a particular prediliction regarding bikes and trains.
I regard the two together as a very potent travel tool and the current
situation where (1) the rules vary by TOC (2) in many cases you cannot
simply turn up and go (3) there may be a ludicrously low (two) limit on
the number of bikes per train (4) you have to pay sometimes (5) there
may be time restrictions on when a bike can be take on a train all
mitigate against one of the quickest and most efficient combinations of
transport I know.

Yes, i'm very unhappy about this too. Train + bike is, as you say, the
winning combination for essentially any trip anywhere in the UK, and it's
not sufficiently well supported at present.

That said, it's provision on inter-urban service that's the problem; any
time you take your bike on the NLL for, you could probably cycle!

tom

--
.... and the children still cry "Make mine a 99"