South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'...

David Hansen wrote:

A pram takes up even more space, as does a large case. Why is it
that only cycles that are being picked on and what does this tell
us?

A pram can not be left at the station and is *needed* if you have a
baby. Totally different to a cycle. Large cases I agree with, there
should be some excess charge if they are left in aisles (or on seats!)
and not put in luggage racks. If they are in the luggage racks, then no
problem, just as if you'd used a fold up bike and put it in there, no
problem.

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't you think?

TheMole wrote:

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't you think?

Not at all. If there's proper provision for them. People have been quite
happily taking bikes on trains for years: as a viable way of getting from A
to D (via B and C). Strange that the situation -- with regard to provision
for cycles -- should change now.

A pram can not be left at the station and is *needed* if you have a
baby.

No it's not. Use a baby sling to carry the offspring. A pram or pushchair is
*nice*, it's generally convenient and it makes life a lot easier, but it's
*not* essential. I speak from experience.

snipped..

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't you think?

All my bikes (non-folders) are neither considerate nor inconsiderate - they are
inanimate objects ;-)

Taking a bike on a train is no more inconsiderate than taking
pram/pushchair/large suitcase/ double mattress....

Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

On 10 Jul 2004 16:24:21 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

A pram can not be left at the station and is *needed* if you have a
baby.

No it's not. Use a baby sling to carry the offspring. A pram or pushchair is
*nice*, it's generally convenient and it makes life a lot easier, but it's
*not* essential. I speak from experience.

snipped..

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't you think?

All my bikes (non-folders) are neither considerate nor inconsiderate - they are
inanimate objects ;-)

Taking a bike on a train is no more inconsiderate than taking
pram/pushchair/large suitcase/ double mattress....


I should have followed up on the original "double mattress" post. The
conditions of carriage *do* prevent you taking such a thing on a
train. IIRC until recently they were good, objective conditions that
specificied something like nothing bigger than 1m x 1m x 1m. I think
they may have got a bit more vague recently and read somehtnh like:

luggage will be refused if

"the luggage might cause injury or inconvenience or damage to
property;
there is not enough room for the luggage;
the loading and unloading of the luggage may cause delay to trains; or
the luggage is not carried or packaged in a suitable manner."

"Richard" typed



"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
there is a conflict of interest between passenger seating and cycle
carriage on many peak South West Trains' services.

Only because of the **** poor design of the new trains. **** poor
design is not compulsory and it is possible to design trains with
suitable facilities.

No, even at the design stage the conflict exists. Guard's cage or 12 extra
seats? No-brainer really, unless you have to waste that space anyway
(half-carriage crush zones, for example - I assume the space wasted on
Voyagers on the bike/luggage area is prohibited for seating?


My original contribution to this thread seems to have disappeared.

I travelled on the Waterloo-Weymouth line last week using 4 trains in
all. On only one of those was the catering car in use for the whole
journey (the buffet closed at Brockenhurst on our outward
Waterloo-Weymouth journey). I don't see why SWT waste huge amounts of
space for catering and fail to provide for potentially loyal cyclists.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:25:32 +0100, TheMole wrote:

But full non-foldable bikes are a tad inconsiderate, don't you think?

Not on a near-deserted train heading out from London at 9:30 am.
This used to be allowed, and in the proposed scheme is banned.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sat, 10 Jul, [Not Responding] wrote:

luggage will be refused if

"the luggage might cause injury or inconvenience or damage to
property;

I'm hard put imaging a double mattress inconveniencing, damaging or
injuring any property.

there is not enough room for the luggage;

Oxymoron - if it can't fit on teh train, obviously it won't be carried
by the train

the loading and unloading of the luggage may cause delay to trains; or

I reckon I can get a double mattress on within teh time teh train is
stopped

the luggage is not carried or packaged in a suitable manner."

I'll wrap it nicely, and I'm not convinced there is an unsuitable
manner to carry a mattress.

So, by those rules, a double mattress is allowed.

The serious point is that those rules are not applied selectively -
I'd be entuirely happy if bicycles were carried only on that basis.
For sme reason, however, teh TOCs decide to single out bicycles. It
is thois that is annoying.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ricardo wrote in message ...
Why not? Gedankenexperiment: those 3% of journeys suddenly becomes, say,
70%. The ££££ ploughed into subsidising motor cars can be diverted onto
the renationalised railways

LOL!

I think you've got that the wrong way round. If 50% of the drivers out
there suddenly stopped driving, the country would have a £20bn a year
tax hole that would need to be filled from somewhere else. Even if
road maintenece was halved it would only save £3bn a year.

Face it, motorists subsidise the railways for you and I, and if they
all came on the 8:22 to London Bridge, we'd have to travel on the
roof.

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jul, [Not Responding] wrote:

luggage will be refused if

"the luggage might cause injury or inconvenience or damage to
property;

I'm hard put imaging a double mattress inconveniencing, damaging or
injuring any property.

there is not enough room for the luggage;

Oxymoron - if it can't fit on teh train, obviously it won't be carried
by the train


Nope. An oxymoron is a phrase consisting of mutually exclusive
or contradictory terms. Thus its been argued on another thread
that the phrase "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

This rule amounts to a tautology or necessary truth. If there's no
room for the luggage then it's imposssible to carry it and so it
will have to be refused.


Curious



the loading and unloading of the luggage may cause delay to trains; or

I reckon I can get a double mattress on within teh time teh train is
stopped

the luggage is not carried or packaged in a suitable manner."

I'll wrap it nicely, and I'm not convinced there is an unsuitable
manner to carry a mattress.

So, by those rules, a double mattress is allowed.

The serious point is that those rules are not applied selectively -
I'd be entuirely happy if bicycles were carried only on that basis.
For sme reason, however, teh TOCs decide to single out bicycles. It
is thois that is annoying.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"[Not Responding]" wrote:

On 09 Jul 2004 15:29:17 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

I really hate what's happening to our public transport infrastrucure.

It has to be said...

... What public transport infrastructure???

How true.

[1] Either through life style choices such as living in the country
and working/studying/shopping in town or through simply getting used
to the luxuries of private space, CD players etc that cars offer and
falsely believing that travel cannot be accomplished without these.

Not that I have anything against people spending their cash on
luxuries such as travelling in private or rural dormitory living. I
just get irked when these people then go on to say that travel without
a car is crap or impossible.

I live in a semi-rural area and we have been car-free for16 years.
i agree with everything you say.

Cue all excuses from the car-dependent brigade

John B