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

In article ,
says...
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?

It tells us that you need to put a childseat on the back of your bike
and stand your ground.

Jon

In article ,
says...
I have added uk.railway back as I don't see why someone removed it.

That would appear to have been me, although it wasn't intentional.

Jon

In message , David Hansen
writes
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?

Sadly, that cyclists using trains are often much less considerate of
their fellow passengers.
--
Roland Perry

"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?

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like on the
continent.
I've seen ones in Germany which have the entire lower floor empty to
carry
bikes on.

But of course that would require re-engineering the whole UK railway
system
as the loading gauge isn't big enough to take double-deck trains.

If the lower deck was unoccupied, you could perhaps get away with 2/3 height
and still have a decent passenger compartment within the loading guage.
However I wouldn't like to address the security issues, or ticketless
travel, or....

It is quite an experience being on the lower deck of a train doing 300kph
with a very close up view of the ballast - now a tilting version would be
even more interesting!!!

Richard

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:05:04 GMT, Simon Brooke
wrote:

in message , [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:34:52 GMT, Lozz wrote:

Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't want you.

Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from peak hour trains.
Cyclists and their bikes take up valuable space on trains that could
be used for a greater number of non-cycling passengers. This is
economic reality.

[snip]

Cyclists would be much better off campaigning for something that is
realistic. I say this as someone who has some involevement with
railway companies, cycling campaigns and local councils.

I'm with you on this.

Coming from a slightly different angle, consider the situation if
cycling ceases to be the mode for a tiny 3% of journeys and becomes
mainstream transport. It will simply not be economic for a significant
number of passengers to take bikes for free.

So why not impose a realistic charge for the carriage of a bicycle?

Later on in my post that's pretty much what I suggested. I just am not
convinced that there are that many people who are willing to pay twice
the ticket price for the bike and again for themselves.

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? typed:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
wrote in message
:

One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like on the
continent. I've seen ones in Germany which have the entire lower
floor empty to carry bikes on.

Would not work in many areas due to loading gauge constraints.

Well snipped there, that man!

A

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:21:38 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
wrote in message
:

Would not work in many areas due to loading gauge constraints.
Well snipped there, that man!

Well, I wasn't referring to the existing gauge, I was talking about
places where the gauge is constrained by route or whatever. But I
don't think I was thinking very clearly as the things I had in mind
were long tunnels and the like, which of course /could/ be
re-engineered, it would just be expensive.

Put it down to the external constraints on loading gauge imposed by
pipes to the hot water header :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

David Hansen wrote:


If you are serious about such arguments then seats take up valuable
space that could be used for a greater number of standing
passengers. One of the reasons that "modern" trains convey fewer
people in peak hours is the loss of standing room in the guards
vans.

Some of our trains have folding seats (bench-type, along the sides of
the carriage) that are kept raised during rush hour so as to pack in the
sardines most effficiently.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

In message , Ian Smith
writes

So far as I
can tell, I am allowed to take a double mattress with me onto a peak
hours SWT train...

It might make for a more comfortable journey, but the steering's
rubbish. And add 50 per cent to your onward journey time at the other
end.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com