In message
, at
14:07:48 on Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Mizter T remarked:
So, has a (moving) train ever offered proper draught beer on tap?
Would it even work? Me thinks it might somewhat unsettle the beer...

It's possible to decant draft beer, especially if you know it's going to
be consumed in the next day or two.
--
Roland Perry

In message
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Mizter T wrote:

On 13 Jan, 22:52, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
* * * * * Mizter T wrote:

So, has a (moving) train ever offered proper draught beer on tap?
Would it even work? Me thinks it might somewhat unsettle the beer...

My father used to reminisce about the draught beer he got on the
train from Scotland to London when coming home on leave during the
war.

Dare I be so bold as to enquire where and with whom you're father was
stationed, out of nothing more than idle curiosity?

RAF in Iceland!

Ah yes, after we invaded it - one of my favourite surreal bits of the war,
that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland


Yup, he was one of the occupation forces :-) Apparently the natives were
friendly.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:31:16 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

On 13 Jan, 21:25, Tom Barry wrote:

Yup, but orbital ones, I think. *I read that commitment as part of his
strategy to portray the poor suburbs as having been neglected by Eeeevil
Ken, rather than as a serious policy (the only manifestation of it after
TfL got hold of Boris so far being a few extra buses on the X26,
doubling the frequency to a mind-blowing half-hourly). *It was never
exactly fleshed out, nor was it ever really explained how it would
contribute to things, although compared to, say, replacing bendies on
the 507 and 521 it seems positively sane.

I agree about the politics behind it. One thing I find particularly
interesting is the fact that it was the outer-borough of Bromley,
fuelled by a combination of Tory loathing of Ken's Labour GLC and
indignation about the perceived unfairness of the Fares Fair policy -
which used London rate payers money through the GLC to subsidise LT
but not BR services - that managed to have that very policy killed
off. However AIUI the GLC had wanted to also subsidise BR services in
London, but the Tory central government opposed this (and BR obviously
fell under its remit). So there's some indignation from locals at the
lack of subsidy extending to BR which local Tories stoke up, yet Tory
ministers in government were the ones that derailed the chance of this
in the first place (which fits in with the Thatcherite ethos).

I believe government said the GLC could pay the subsidy but they would
simply lop off an equivalent amount from BR's budget so BR would be no
further forward. A barmy idea but well it was the early 1980s.

Fast forward to last year - Boris is mouthing off about getting better
transport in the outer suburbs, but it's Ken who (a) has managed to
channel a significant degree of TfL funding into improving rail
facilities in London, specifically stations, and (b) has espoused over
and over again his desire to get and take control of as much of the
rail network in London as he can. Boris hasn't said anything of the
sort so far, and there hasn't really been any suggestion of what
powers he might like central government to cede to him should the
Tories get elected - apart from the Met Police, but we'll leave that
aside as it's a large but rather different issue. Obviously there's a
budget crunch at TfL and that to a greater or lesser degree that would
have come regardless of who the Mayor was, but one hopes that TfL do
continue to fund and forcefully push for improvements to suburban
rail.

The bit that has not happened is the "emergency rail summit" where Boris
was going to tell the rail companies off for being bad boys (or words to
that effect). Clearly there is such an emergency that nearly 8 months
on there is still no date, no agenda and no list of attendees. I
suspect not much has happened because there is no clarity as to policy
nor funding so why sit in a room with TOC representatives when you've
nothing to say if they ask you some awkward questions. The lack of
noise from City Hall about threatened ticket office closures and
suggestions of service cuts is perhaps a small indication of where
things are at. Being generous there might have been some lobbying of
the DfT in the background but normally if there is opposition it is
stated as existing so people can see the Mayor or TfL are fighting their
corner.

With regards to the notion of express bus routes - I certainly think
it's got potential, and I thought so long before the words passed
Bozza's lips. Orbital, radial, whatever - if they were to work and
fulfil a need and provide a link then they sound like a good idea to
me. I even wouldn't have any particular issues with them charging a
small premium on the normal bus fare.

Don't mention premium fares - it'll become policy before you know it. I
have no objection to the concept of express buses provided they run in
the right place, serve the right stops and that conventional routes
aren't hacked about to fund them. There are quite significant gaps in
the bus network and some of those certainly need to be filled.

By the by I can't help but wonder if the 507 and 521 have somehow been
purposefully (albeit subtly) chosen so as to make the grand bendy-
axing project fail, or at least to blunt the knife somewhat.

No it was simply that they were first up for retender as their original
contracts were extended to the 7 year maximum allowed under the QIC
rules. Route 38 was a compromise extended contract as it was converted
part way through the old Routemaster contract and was extended to give
some cash flow to fund the bendy conversion. We face interesting times
later this year when the great experiment begins in earnest ....

--
Paul C

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:31:16 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

With regards to the notion of express bus routes

Don't mention premium fares - it'll become policy before you know it.
I have no objection to the concept of express buses provided they run
in the right place, serve the right stops and that conventional routes
aren't hacked about to fund them. There are quite significant gaps
in the bus network and some of those certainly need to be filled.

Don't you mean "gaps in the rail network"?

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:04:55 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:31:16 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

With regards to the notion of express bus routes

Don't mention premium fares - it'll become policy before you know it.
I have no objection to the concept of express buses provided they run
in the right place, serve the right stops and that conventional routes
aren't hacked about to fund them. There are quite significant gaps
in the bus network and some of those certainly need to be filled.

Don't you mean "gaps in the rail network"?

No I don't think I do. I believe the Boris manifesto said something
like linking together rail stations in the suburbs - I suspect they mean
some sort of express between Bromley and Bexleyheath or Mill Hill,
Edgware, Barnet and Harrow on the Hill. I don't see those as gaps in
the rail network - it's just trying to avoid people having to travel
into Zone 1 or 2 to change lines. I doubt very much that the traffic
density is there to justify a railway line ever being built between
these places so how can it be a rail system gap?

If they're really concerned about gaps in the suburbs between rail lines
then why the delay on ELLX Phase 2 and why scrap DLR to Dagenham and
Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace? They would all provide a form of
orbital, outer area link to rail lines. This is where I get annoyed with
the current "regime" - their policy position is "all over the shop".
There's no robust logic. Still it's cheaper with a bus isn't it?

I know we're almost arguing semantics but let's compromise on "gaps in
the public transport network".

--
Paul C

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:30:27 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Don't mention premium fares - it'll become policy before you know it.

Premium fares have their purpose on express bus routes. In Germany,
Schnellbusse are usually used to operate direct services with
higher-quality seating from suburbs to city centres, where there is
normally[1] an equivalent local bus service to the nearest station.
In the UK, by contrast, bus routes tend to penetrate the city centre
anyway, so that concept doesn't quite fit. In the German model, the
premium fare essentially acts to reduce demand while at the same time
representing the extra value of a direct, well-specified service.

In London, OTOH, these routes are being proposed to plug gaps in the
rail network (I know you don't agree, but orbital services are
generally a very big gap in the rail network). This doesn't seem to
suggest that a premium fare would be sensible.

As for the X68, I must admit I don't really understand it - why
wouldn't passengers on it use the train, other than for the cheap bus
fare?

[1] The Blankeneser Bergziege (Blankenese mountain goat) in Hamburg is
a notable exception, where a local minibus service through a very
prosperous area is made less of an economic basket case by being
classed as a Schnellbus (express bus), when in fact it is anything but
and actually provides connections to the railway station.

Neil

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:09:19 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

So, has a (moving) train ever offered proper draught beer on tap?

I don't know how proper it was, but HST buffets offered draught beer when
they were first introduced. IIRC it didn't lasst long.

I knew a chap who was involved with that . Travelers Fare wanted metered
dispense which those old enough will remember as being common back in
the 1970's . This was so that they could use oversize glasses which
would mean less spillage than from a measure to the brim glass. A
reasonable consideration on a moving train. The electronic beer meters
proved unreliable on the unstable power supply available which is why it
did not last long.

Did they consider oversize glasses with a line at the appropriate level?

tom

--
Re-enacting the future

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:35:08 +0000, Tom Anderson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:09:19 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

So, has a (moving) train ever offered proper draught beer on tap?

I don't know how proper it was, but HST buffets offered draught beer when
they were first introduced. IIRC it didn't lasst long.

I knew a chap who was involved with that . Travelers Fare wanted metered
dispense which those old enough will remember as being common back in
the 1970's . This was so that they could use oversize glasses which
would mean less spillage than from a measure to the brim glass. A
reasonable consideration on a moving train. The electronic beer meters
proved unreliable on the unstable power supply available which is why it
did not last long.

Did they consider oversize glasses with a line at the appropriate level?

They'd be difficult to fill accurately on a moving train, I would have
thought. Some form of metered dispense is probably the only practical
solution.

Mark
--
A Miscellany Of Good Stuff:
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
http://namestore.good-stuff.co.uk
http://news.good-stuff.co.uk

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:09:19 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

So, has a (moving) train ever offered proper draught beer on tap?

I don't know how proper it was, but HST buffets offered draught beer when
they were first introduced. IIRC it didn't lasst long.

I knew a chap who was involved with that . Travelers Fare wanted metered
dispense which those old enough will remember as being common back in
the 1970's . This was so that they could use oversize glasses which
would mean less spillage than from a measure to the brim glass. A
reasonable consideration on a moving train. The electronic beer meters
proved unreliable on the unstable power supply available which is why it
did not last long.

Did they consider oversize glasses with a line at the appropriate level?


Doesn't help if the dispenser is not delivering properly. That was the
problem with the beer meters, they were fine when they worked but were very
prone to packing up or not delivering the right amount at the slightest
provocation. For a start they had to be kept scrupulously clean

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:35:08 +0000, Tom Anderson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Did they consider oversize glasses with a line at the appropriate
level?

They'd be difficult to fill accurately on a moving train, I would have
thought. Some form of metered dispense is probably the only practical
solution.

You could use a glass with a plug an inch from the top, with a tube through
the plug on either side of the glass. The pint mark would be in the tubes.
The underside of the plug would be sculpted to ensure bubbles couldn't stay
beneath it.