On 16 Mar, 07:55, judith walters
privacy.net> wrote:> What I thought was a good response to the same question posted in
> uk.legal.moderated (it appears the OP was pissed off by the
> know-it-alls who responded with their "you should buy a 1st class
> ticket" mentality rather than answering/discussing the specific issue
> raised so he/she went there later)
I was a person saying that to a passenger yesterday on the 2036 Kings
Cross train as I walked through to get to the other end of the train.
Three inspectors boarded at Potters Bar and surrounded the first class
section to stop people leaving. I knew one, and as I walked through, I
heard a woman saying "Well, if there were enough seats in standard
class, I wouldn't have to sit here". I presumed she had been watching
'Are we there yet?' so I took a little pleasure (mainly as a joke to
the RPI) in pointing out that the rest of the train had almost as many
seats free as Wembley Stadium, and to pay her penalty fare and stop
moaning.
The train had loads of seats, but - shock horror - you may have needed
to sit next to someone else! I'd say the train was about 50%% full
seats wise, which is probably 20-30%% tops if you count standing room.
She wanted a nice free upgrade to first class and got caught; tough.
Maybe she can go off and find somewhere to whinge, or remember to take
a timetable and check for the services where first class IS
declassified and you CAN use it legitimately. Many TOCs do have
declassified services, so there's little reason to moan when you're
caught or simply don't want to have to sit next to a stranger. I
wouldn't pay to go first class on most services (I might for long
distance travel) and don't think I should expect a free upgrade if
someone else has paid for it. Even if a company has paid for someone
else, it's still not right to assume it's okay to upgrade yourself at
the expense of the train company.
> Why do they reduce the size of train sets? Because that reduces
> maintenance and running costs.
> Hence we are seeing far more standing on trains.
Is that really true? On my line, services during the day are often 3
or 4 cars long - but the rest of the time they're 6 or 8. Where
possible, they'll run as 12. Most stations can't take 12 cars though,
which means a 12 car train can't even stop at my station, while power
problems on FCC towards Cambridge prevents more trains being used
elsewhere at peak times (oh, the irony!). Perhaps if the programme the
other day had mentioned all the factors, it could have been a little
fairer than simply saying the TOC is evil and they should run more
trains (which they firstly aren't allowed to buy, and secondly aren't
given the extra paths to allow them to use them).
> Try telling a big burly bloke he's sitting in your seat.
> Believe me they don't want to know!
Isn't this something to do with your comment about people not doing
anything? Don't moan - get the person to move! Your problem isn't with
the train company, but the big burly bloke sitting in your seat.
> I met someone recently coming off a cross country train late Sunday
> morning. Not the busiest time on the railways I would have thought.
> All the carriages had people standing the full length.
Besides going on a train that's running to/from a major event (e.g a
football match, fireworks night etc etc), I've yet to get on a train
that hasn't had room - even if some cars are packed. I've fought my
way through a 180 and got a seat, even though some people are happy to
stand squashed up elsewhere. Of course, it's not easy (or even
popular) to do this all the time - but the same happens on the tube,
which is why regular travellers soon learn which part of the platform
to stand at BEFORE boarding. I'm not saying this is an ideal solution,
but some 'packed' trains aren't actually packed.
> There's clearly a need for more capacity, but while it's cheaper for
> the companies and we don't complain nothing will happen.
Running a longer train shouldn't cost that much more, but you don't
run a 12 car train in the daytime when it's only carrying 20-30 people
throughout its journey. That's a waste of energy if nothing else, plus
the wear and tear that would mean far more regular maintenance
required. Oh wait, isn't that because of the TOC being greedy? They
can't win, because if people thought they were wasting money on
running long, empty, trains they'd be slaughtered.
> Come to think of it, we hear a lot now about our carbon footprint
> while flying. Why don't we have people standing on planes? More
> passengers on a flight, the less the carbon footprint per passenger.
I've read reports that say there's no reason to NOT have people
standing on flights. Sure, they need to be strapped in for take offs
and landings, but you don't have to be given a seat. God help us if
Michael O'Leary got the idea to do it though!
> After all many short haul flights are shorter than a Birmingham to
> Manchester train journey. Some of the low cost airlines would be
> delighted I'm sure to have us all standing in the aisles while holding
> onto all our luggage.
Please, no!
> So, why is it acceptable to stand on a train, but not on a plane? We
> are told that planes are the safest form of transport, so presumably
> safer than trains, which contradicts why you can stand on trains and
> not planes if it's supposedly for safety reasons.
How can you strap people in on a bus or train, which makes multiple
stops? Look at the length of a train and think how many people would
be required to enforce the use of seat belts (I presume they need to
wear belts as sitting by itself is irrelevant if a train rolls down an
embankment). I do wear a belt on a bus or coach when I can, but must
confess that I rarely do in a taxi (I don't know why, because I always
wear my belt when driving myself). If there were belts on a train, it
would have to be voluntary, but seats take up room and if you had a
seat for everyone you would have even less capacity.
Why not remove all seats from a train so you can get loads of people
on? Obvious problem then is how you get that people on and off at
stops.
Personally, my ideal solution is to try and stop people needing to
travel so much in the first place - by ANY mode of transport. Most of
my work can be done at home, except for interviewing people or having
meetings (and even these aren't strictly necessary a lot of the time -
it's just a chance to 'catch up' and have a bit of a social chat).
There are a lot of social gatherings after work, but I could work from
home and come in then - in the opposite direction to the rush hour
crowds - if I wanted. Unfortunately, I can't do that at the moment,
but it's definately the way forward.
If others did the same, and not everyone saw the need to get a job in
London, we could reduce the demand on all transport systems greatly.
Jonathan
