Standing on trains
 

Re the ITV transport programme (London only) on at 1930, it was interesting
that in concentrating on the suggested dangers of standing, the reporter did
not draw attention to the fact that seats are being removed as fast as the
operators can manage it. Even common sense suggests this is a silly idea
without the rather doubtful computer simulations used to confirm it.

MaxB

Standing on trains
 

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:09:12 +0100, "MaxB" wrote:

Re the ITV transport programme (London only) on at 1930, it was interesting
that in concentrating on the suggested dangers of standing, the reporter did
not draw attention to the fact that seats are being removed as fast as the
operators can manage it. Even common sense suggests this is a silly idea
without the rather doubtful computer simulations used to confirm it.

Except that standing on a train is far safer than sitting in a car.
That being the case, it is advantageous to allow as many people to
travel by train as possible.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Standing on trains
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:09:12 +0100, "MaxB" wrote:

Re the ITV transport programme (London only) on at 1930, it was
interesting
that in concentrating on the suggested dangers of standing, the reporter
did
not draw attention to the fact that seats are being removed as fast as the
operators can manage it. Even common sense suggests this is a silly idea
without the rather doubtful computer simulations used to confirm it.

Except that standing on a train is far safer than sitting in a car.
That being the case, it is advantageous to allow as many people to
travel by train as possible.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.


....or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer trains
(particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most crowded) ):

Standing on trains
 

On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:09:12 +0100, "MaxB" wrote:
Re the ITV transport programme (London only) on at 1930, it was interesting
that in concentrating on the suggested dangers of standing, the reporter did
not draw attention to the fact that seats are being removed as fast as the
operators can manage it. Even common sense suggests this is a silly idea
without the rather doubtful computer simulations used to confirm it.

Except that standing on a train is far safer than sitting in a car.
That being the case, it is advantageous to allow as many people to
travel by train as possible.



Except when they remove two seats to create a space where only one
person can stand, as on the Jubilee.

Standing on trains
 

On 19 Apr, 20:54, "MaxB" wrote:
Re the ITV transport programme (London only) on at 1930, it was
interesting
that in concentrating on the suggested dangers of standing, the reporter
did
not draw attention to the fact that seats are being removed as fast as the
operators can manage it. Even common sense suggests this is a silly idea
without the rather doubtful computer simulations used to confirm it.

Except that standing on a train is far safer than sitting in a car.
That being the case, it is advantageous to allow as many people to
travel by train as possible.

...or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer trains
(particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most crowded) ):

Why not do both? Which, indeed, is what is happening.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Standing on trains
 

MaxB wrote:

...or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer
trains (particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most
crowded) ):

How is adding coaches at the front different to adding them at the back or
the middle?

Standing on trains
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
MaxB wrote:

...or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer
trains (particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most
crowded) ):

How is adding coaches at the front different to adding them at the back or
the middle?
It'll mean that the driver of the locomotive can't see where he's going, so
that the coaches at the front and their passengers will be written off when
they arrive at the terminal first.

Regards

David Bennetts

Standing on trains
 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, John Rowland wrote:

MaxB wrote:

...or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer
trains (particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most
crowded) ):

How is adding coaches at the front different to adding them at the back
or the middle?

Because the front is where it's crowded! DON'T YOU GET IT JOHN?!?

This is definitely one of my favourite remarks of all time. Up there with
the chaps i met in Norfolk who knew that the earth was round, but insisted
that the surface of the water in the drainage ditch was perfectly flat ...

tom

--
CRESS AND CREATIVITY GET BUSY -- Barry

Standing on trains
 

On Apr 20, 3:42 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, John Rowland wrote:
MaxB wrote:

...or as the programme was arguing (I think) to run more and longer
trains (particularly with more coaches at the front where it is most
crowded) ):

How is adding coaches at the front different to adding them at the back
or the middle?

Because the front is where it's crowded! DON'T YOU GET IT JOHN?!?

This is definitely one of my favourite remarks of all time. Up there with
the chaps i met in Norfolk who knew that the earth was round, but insisted
that the surface of the water in the drainage ditch was perfectly flat ...

tom

--
CRESS AND CREATIVITY GET BUSY -- Barry

Actually dont you get it BARRY, What would happen if you put
additional carriges at the front? yes thats it all the people that
were in the previous front carriges will move forward to the now new
additional front carriges and therefore will still be packed to the
ratfters and yet the rear of the train will be empty. Wont to know how
i know such matters. Watch a District line train arrive at Richmond in
the evening peak the front two coches is so packed that i dont anyone
can breath yet the last one of six has enough room to actually roam
around in. Also if you put additional coaches at the front where would
the driver go?

The problem is that passengers are creatures of habbit and would
rather stand in a crowded coach than walk back to the rear of the
train all because the exit or entrance is at the front. Actually
doesnt make sense as getting out of the crowded front coach is slower
than getting out the empty rear coach.

I do agree that additional coaches are required on quite a few of the
routes, however companies would look at this as a loss to their
profits and would not be good business sense, the argument would be
why should we use additional coaches just for the rush hour and have
them sitting around doing nothing for the rest of the time. That is
why South West Trains have sent back to the rosco mothballed class
442s which were one of their most relible trains. This has upset
passsengers on south west trains and quite rightly so about what they
have replaced the trains with.

I am a very dying breed on the railways in that i am a guard however
that will come to an end sooner rather than later, so i know all about
overloading on the trains. The thing is a lot of passengers are very
disbeliving when you tell them that another train is immediatly behind
and would be fairly empty, at some stations on the NLL you can even
see the following train and yet passengers will still try to pack into
your already full and now late running train.

keithy

Standing on trains
 

Sorry Barry, used your name apoligies to you. Should have read Dont
you get it TOM.


Sorry Barry