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 |
Standing on trains
keithy wrote:
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. But the middle was packed until Kew Gardens, and the back was packed until Gunnersbury. |
Standing on trains
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... keithy wrote: 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. But the middle was packed until Kew Gardens, and the back was packed until Gunnersbury. I had no idea my remark about coaches on the front would generate so much apparent confusion. Just for the record, it WAS a joke (but suggested in all seriousness by a passenger to me in the 1960s when trains were really crowded, the maximum I recall being around 1700 on a Bexleyheath line morning peak train but of course at least half of them still had seats). MaxB |
Standing on trains
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:54:43 +0100, "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) ): ;) It's amazing how many people can't be bothered to walk to the front of a train. It's common for peak-time trains to leave Euston full and standing in the rear 2 or 3 coaches, all seats taken in the next 4-6 and the rest with spare entire bays, never mind seats. If people would spread out, everyone would have a seat. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Standing on trains
On 19 Apr 2007 12:57:01 -0700, MIG
wrote: Except when they remove two seats to create a space where only one person can stand, as on the Jubilee. Isn't that supposed to be multipurpose space for luggage, prams and such? That said, the Northern Line tip-up seats in those spaces are better than the "perches" on the Jubbly. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Standing on trains
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, keithy wrote:
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?!? Actually dont you get it BARRY, What would happen if you put additional carriges at the front? Keithy, i was kidding. I realise that putting coaches on the front or the back is exactly the same thing. In fact, i think it's bleeding obvious, which is why Max's joke was so funny. I think John took it a touch too seriously, hence my post. tom -- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor |
Standing on trains
On Apr 21, 11:17 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On 19 Apr 2007 12:57:01 -0700, MIG wrote: Except when they remove two seats to create a space where only one person can stand, as on the Jubilee. Isn't that supposed to be multipurpose space for luggage, prams and such? That said, the Northern Line tip-up seats in those spaces are better than the "perches" on the Jubbly. The trouble is that people have top halves to their bodies and, if leaning rather than sitting, actually splay their legs further out than they would if sitting in a flip-up seat. The chunky obstructions (like the speak to the driver thing) on one side, plus the inappropriateness of leaning on someone's head on the other side, result in people leaning in the middle of the space where two flip-up seats would be, leaving no room for a second person. At times of crowding, there is no room for luggage anyway. At times of less crowding, the seats could be flipped up and the space would be useable. There are similar problems with the 376s on SET. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk