One of the units failed on a Sheffield to London 125 just outside Bedford.
The conductor announces he has good news and bad news.
Bad news the last 50 miles are going to take over an hour ie at least 25 mins late.
Good news
Were not at 40,000 ft
On that note I was at Gatwick this afternoon to collect my boy and whilst waiting I studied the arrivals board. Almost no flight was due to arrive at their scheduled time. Some were with a few minutes either way but most were more than five minutes late, some several hours. If the railway companies were so bad at keeping to their time table there would be uproar and refunds all round. Yet because it is aeroplanes nobody seems to care.
I might also note the length of time to deliver the baggage to the reclaim area. With some flights it was there within ten minutes of landing with others it was thirty minutes plus. Gatwick is not that big for the distance from stand to baggage belt to make that much difference.
We rightly demand high standards from the railways but seem oblivious to the crap service by the airlines. I am not sure why.
Because we secretly know in the backs of our minds that any flight on a jet aircraft is a miracle of engineering that should really be impossible, and we cut them some slack for that reason?
Or:
Because we have little choice: it's either this poor airline or that poor airline, or a pedal-boat?
Evening, Mr. J.,
Your second option doesn't really work because we have even less choice with the railways and yet have an independent regulator who monitors performance, imposes fines, enforces refunds and all sorts of other stuff.
I suppose you first one might work, but after 60 years of commercial jet travel surely the miracle bit should have worn off by now.
It is quite possible that there was some issue that caused a lot of flights to be late on the particular day you were there?
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
Traingate, not surprised Richard Branson stepped in, when a senior politician trashes your brand for political ends. I am old enough to remember BR on the West coast line, it was dire. I once came North from Euston(obviously), and we were like cattle class,standing all the way , like a very crowded lift,like being on the underground at rush hour, but for 3 hours. Now the Pendolino's are fantastic,anyone wanting to go back to the old BR days has a problem.
The Virgin Voyagers at pieces of shit. Literally in the case of their curious positioning of air conditioning and effluence pipes. Give me an old clap and bang on a 125 an day of the week over them.
No idea what a Virgin voyager is, but the Pendolinos are excellent. I am not a PB train expert, but I have experience of BR, and they were dire.
Dire is an exaggeration and they cost the Exchequer £1 bn a year as againat £5 bn a year while charging half as much or less in fares.
You get what you pay for.
That's slightly disingenuous.
Firstly, the 1 billion is taking a very good year pre-privatisation. I can't find the document atm, but I've linked to it before on here. I think some years were two or more billion.
Secondly, the £5 billion includes new infrastructure spending such as Crossrail and GWML electrification;
Thirdly, passenger numbers have doubled.
Fourthly, as a whole the privatised companies are returning money to the treasury. The money sink is the nationalised Network Rail. The same could not be said under BR, where (I think) only Intercity was profitable.
Well, we could privatise Network Rail again and no trains would be running.
One of the problems with being stuck in the 1970s is that you are unaware that it's much easier to get caught fibbing than it used to be. Someone needs to tell Jezza and the other posh boys that things like Twitter, internet archiving, CCTV, texts and so on are going to catch you out if you dissemble.
Also to emerge today, of course, is that Jeremy actually backed Diane Abbott for the Labour mayor nomination, not Sadiq as was claimed.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Good idea! I suppose you'd need either: 1) weight detectors in the seats, 2) some means, say a broken light beam, of counting people on and off, or 3) some sort of person identification system coupled to CCTV. I guess the last of these would perhaps be the best bet, given advances in video processing.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
There are plenty of them now. They have lights above each space which are red if a car is there and green if there isn't, and they tell you precisely how many spaces are free in each row before you enter it.
@MikeSmithson #Traingate isn't as entertaining as the time Osborne was seen travelling to London in a 1st class seat without 1st class ticket
Yup and as entertaining as Labour spads removing antimacassars (thanks again Marquee Mark) to hide the fact they were in first class.
In my opinion Osborne's" offence"was the least awful by a loooooong way.
Sitting in first class with a standard class ticket is a criminal offence - deliberate and knowing fare evasion. On Thameslink at least. Normally they just penalty fare you but sometimes the on train inspectors read out a formal caution - you do not have to say anything but anything you say etc.... and prosecute. Criminal records all round.
Sitting on the floor or hiding antimacassars does not come close.
Personally i quite like Virgin trains. Their "Tilting ale" is excellent and not particularly pricey. It's actually sometimes quite a shock how relatively cheap the products in their buffet service are.
Go first and they are free! And delivered to your seat at regular intervals by charming and helpful staff. If you are polite they may sometimes double up on the measures too.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Good idea! I suppose you'd need either: 1) weight detectors in the seats, 2) some means, say a broken light beam, of counting people on and off, or 3) some sort of person identification system coupled to CCTV. I guess the last of these would perhaps be the best bet, given advances in video processing.
I think the simplest solution would be to have ontrain Television monitors (like they have on buses) rotating the view around the carriages. That would enable people to easily identify gaps (although not where seats are potentially reserved)
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
Westfield, Shepherd's Bush tells you how many of them are in each row as you drive past, so you can decide whether it's worth turning into.
Personally i quite like Virgin trains. Their "Tilting ale" is excellent and not particularly pricey. It's actually sometimes quite a shock how relatively cheap the products in their buffet service are.
Go first and they are free! And delivered to your seat at regular intervals by charming and helpful staff. If you are polite they may sometimes double up on the measures too.
Yeah i've never gone in first class. Bit stupid though seeing as it probably wouldn't even cost any more money all in.
There is though a sort of a camaraderie about squeezing in with the masses on a packed train. Can meet some interesting people as well. My favourite episode was when I was squatting with a group of (unconnected) people who started chatting about some vaguely obscure rock band. Chap who had been a bit quiet eventually piped up to reveal (a complete coincidence!) that he was a member of said band!
The great thing about the Intercity 125 is that the power cars are at each end, rather than having the engines vibrating underneath the carriages. One of the more encouraging railway stories of recent times is the decision to build proper carriages to be pulled by proper locomotives for the Trans Pennine route.
The prototype 125 is operating at GCRN.
Attended a talk by the 125 restoration group last week.
It was fabulous.
Isn't that the group that wants to preserve an entire 125? They've shown they've got technical nous with that brilliant work on the prototype.
They do but waiting for one to be offloaded by a train operator.
Then they fit an original engine of which they have a few to get that famous whistling back
Will the original engine have that original, utterly distinctive, horrible smell? Or was that something to do with the braking system?
My main objection to Virgin Trains is that message about not flushing your dreams, unpaid bills etc down the toilet. I admit it was mildly amusing the first time I saw it, but it really grates with repetition.
That has been copied by/was copied from other companies
Is the Trump documentary on Ch4 in a free minutes a repeat? I am sure Matt Frei did a piece titles something very similar on Trump a couple of months ago.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
My local mall car park has a light and sensor above each space, light is green when the space is empty and red when it's occupied. Display at the end of each lane indicate how many free spaces are in that lane. Works really well but probably costs a few quid.
Is the Trump documentary on Ch4 in a free minutes a repeat? I am sure Matt Frei did a piece titles something very similar on Trump a couple of months ago.
That was pre nomination, I think this is a follow up for the general election
One of the problems with being stuck in the 1970s is that you are unaware that it's much easier to get caught fibbing than it used to be. Someone needs to tell Jezza and the other posh boys that things like Twitter, internet archiving, CCTV, texts and so on are going to catch you out if you dissemble.
Also to emerge today, of course, is that Jeremy actually backed Diane Abbott for the Labour mayor nomination, not Sadiq as was claimed.
My main objection to Virgin Trains is that message about not flushing your dreams, unpaid bills etc down the toilet. I admit it was mildly amusing the first time I saw it, but it really grates with repetition.
That has been copied by/was copied from other companies
Whenever i see that message, all i can think of is the huge number of ridiculous things i am therefore apparently allowed to flush down the toilet!
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
My local mall car park has a light and sensor above each space, light is green when the space is empty and red when it's occupied. Display at the end of each lane indicate how many free spaces are in that lane. Works really well but probably costs a few quid.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
Not quite sure how they'd do that though. It's a bit easier when you have cars going through barriers to give a foolproof method of determining the numbers in the carpark. And i've never seen one that tells you precisely where the spaces are, as opposed to the contention that they must exist.
My local mall car park has a light and sensor above each space, light is green when the space is empty and red when it's occupied. Display at the end of each lane indicate how many free spaces are in that lane. Works really well but probably costs a few quid.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
Your second option doesn't really work because we have even less choice with the railways and yet have an independent regulator who monitors performance, imposes fines, enforces refunds and all sorts of other stuff.
I suppose you first one might work, but after 60 years of commercial jet travel surely the miracle bit should have worn off by now.
evening, Mr L. I meant choice between transport modes: you can choose bus, coach, car - and sometimes taxi or plane - for many journeys instead of plane.
Replacing most plane journeys in a similar manner is non-trivial.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
I'm afraid you're wrong there - you're allowed to stand on busses, and they can get fairly overcrowded.
@MikeSmithson #Traingate isn't as entertaining as the time Osborne was seen travelling to London in a 1st class seat without 1st class ticket
Yup and as entertaining as Labour spads removing antimacassars (thanks again Marquee Mark) to hide the fact they were in first class.
In my opinion Osborne's" offence"was the least awful by a loooooong way.
Sitting in first class with a standard class ticket is a criminal offence - deliberate and knowing fare evasion. On Thameslink at least. Normally they just penalty fare you but sometimes the on train inspectors read out a formal caution - you do not have to say anything but anything you say etc.... and prosecute. Criminal records all round.
Sitting on the floor or hiding antimacassars does not come close.
Never travelled on Thameslink but on other operators have been told and heard announcements that if you want to upgrade to first class, you must go & find a seat there and pay the excess when the ticket bod comes round.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
That would unacceptably reduce the capacity on the trains. For airplanes it is fair enough to require a seat per passenger, you need to have a seat so you can sit down and wear your seatbelt in the event of turbulence.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
Traingate, not surprised Richard Branson stepped in, when a senior politician trashes your brand for political ends. I am old enough to remember BR on the West coast line, it was dire. I once came North from Euston(obviously), and we were like cattle class,standing all the way , like a very crowded lift,like being on the underground at rush hour, but for 3 hours. Now the Pendolino's are fantastic,anyone wanting to go back to the old BR days has a problem.
The Virgin Voyagers at pieces of shit. Literally in the case of their curious positioning of air conditioning and effluence pipes. Give me an old clap and bang on a 125 an day of the week over them.
No idea what a Virgin voyager is, but the Pendolinos are excellent. I am not a PB train expert, but I have experience of BR, and they were dire.
Dire is an exaggeration and they cost the Exchequer £1 bn a year as againat £5 bn a year while charging half as much or less in fares.
You get what you pay for.
That's slightly disingenuous.
Firstly, the 1 billion is taking a very good year pre-privatisation. I can't find the document atm, but I've linked to it before on here. I think some years were two or more billion.
Secondly, the £5 billion includes new infrastructure spending such as Crossrail and GWML electrification;
Thirdly, passenger numbers have doubled.
Fourthly, as a whole the privatised companies are returning money to the treasury. The money sink is the nationalised Network Rail. The same could not be said under BR, where (I think) only Intercity was profitable.
Two billion, you are joking. In good years in the 80s it was nearer £500 million.
After inflation the subsidy is now double anything BR got and for several years after Hatfield it was triple.
Not even intercity is profitable now. The franchise premiums for those dont anywhere near the subsidy for NR.
And as for the NR payments being for investment. If they invested as efficiently as BR who electrified the 400 mile long East Coast Main Line and built all the new inter city 225 trains that are still running on the line for £390 million in the mid 80s (about 1 billion now including inflation) they wouldnt need it.
As a comparison, Great Western Electrification to Bristol/Swansea which is half the distance is now estimated to cost 2.8 Billion excluding the new IEP trains which will cost another £3 billion.
The privatised railway is an extravagant producer interest moneypit.
The great thing about the Intercity 125 is that the power cars are at each end, rather than having the engines vibrating underneath the carriages. One of the more encouraging railway stories of recent times is the decision to build proper carriages to be pulled by proper locomotives for the Trans Pennine route.
The prototype 125 is operating at GCRN.
Attended a talk by the 125 restoration group last week.
It was fabulous.
Isn't that the group that wants to preserve an entire 125? They've shown they've got technical nous with that brilliant work on the prototype.
They do but waiting for one to be offloaded by a train operator.
Then they fit an original engine of which they have a few to get that famous whistling back
Will the original engine have that original, utterly distinctive, horrible smell? Or was that something to do with the braking system?
I think the smell was the brakes (or, back in the 1980s, a tenner in brake linings' burnt at every application from 125 to 0).
The original Valenta engines were, I think, famous for catching fire (or at least their exhasrs were).
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
And what would you do with the rest of the passengers?
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
Also, what do you do about season tickets?
Well quite. Plane travel is completely different - most journeys are planned in advance. Trains (especially commuter routes) ,buses, underground have to be run on the basis that most passengers can not reasonably plan the details of their journey in advance.
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
The great thing about the Intercity 125 is that the power cars are at each end, rather than having the engines vibrating underneath the carriages. One of the more encouraging railway stories of recent times is the decision to build proper carriages to be pulled by proper locomotives for the Trans Pennine route.
The prototype 125 is operating at GCRN.
Attended a talk by the 125 restoration group last week.
It was fabulous.
Isn't that the group that wants to preserve an entire 125? They've shown they've got technical nous with that brilliant work on the prototype.
They do but waiting for one to be offloaded by a train operator.
Then they fit an original engine of which they have a few to get that famous whistling back
Will the original engine have that original, utterly distinctive, horrible smell? Or was that something to do with the braking system?
I think the smell was the brakes (or, back in the 1980s, a tenner in brake linings' burnt at every application from 125 to 0).
The original Valenta engines were, I think, famous for catching fire (or at least their exhasrs were).
Maybe it's just me, but I liked that smell. I also like the distinctive biscuity smell of underground stations - and God only knows what causes that?
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
The clapham disaster was a disaster because pond life in Bournemouth thought it would be clever to put a cement mixer on the track the night before which one of the brand new Wessex Electric highly prangworthy BR MK3 trains collided with and was knocked out of service.
As a result a 1960s unit was substututed onto the train which collided with the stationary train with catastrophic results the next day at Clapham, the death toll would have been far lower but for that.
I dont know if the vandals were ever caught but I would have given them life for manslaughter.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
I'm afraid you're wrong there - you're allowed to stand on busses, and they can get fairly overcrowded.
Mr. Jessup a limited number of people are allowed to stand on buses. If you look around somewhere near the driver you will see the registered capacity for that type of bus: X passengers seated Y passengers standing where Y is very much less than X. More than that it is illegal and both the driver and the operating company can be prosecuted.
Bus companies are most definitely not entitled legally to cram as many people on board as they can squeeze. Unlike the trains.
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
That's how the American political system works. Just like here where CEO and Chairmen of companies who donate to a political party expects to get a gong.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
That would unacceptably reduce the capacity on the trains. For airplanes it is fair enough to require a seat per passenger, you need to have a seat so you can sit down and wear your seatbelt in the event of turbulence.
The new Thameslink stock will seat 660 with over 1000 standing. Banning standing = Tripling of fares
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Traingate, not surprised Richard Branson stepped in, when a senior politician trashes your brand for political ends. I am old enough to remember BR on the West coast line, it was dire. I once came North from Euston(obviously), and we were like cattle class,standing all the way , like a very crowded lift,like being on the underground at rush hour, but for 3 hours. Now the Pendolino's are fantastic,anyone wanting to go back to the old BR days has a problem.
The Virgin Voyagers at pieces of shit. Literally in the case of their curious positioning of air conditioning and effluence pipes. Give me an old clap and bang on a 125 an day of the week over them.
No idea what a Virgin voyager is, but the Pendolinos are excellent. I am not a PB train expert, but I have experience of BR, and they were dire.
Dire is an exaggeration and they cost the Exchequer £1 bn a year as againat £5 bn a year while charging half as much or less in fares.
You get what you pay for.
That's slightly disingenuous.
Firstly, the 1 billion is taking a very good year pre-privatisation. I can't find the document atm, but I've linked to it before on here. I think some years were two or more billion.
Secondly, the £5 billion includes new infrastructure spending such as Crossrail and GWML electrification;
Thirdly, passenger numbers have doubled.
Fourthly, as a whole the privatised companies are returning money to the treasury. The money sink is the nationalised Network Rail. The same could not be said under BR, where (I think) only Intercity was profitable.
Two billion, you are joking. In good years in the 80s it was nearer £500 million.
(Snip)
Nope, I'm right. Some years it was low, especially immediately prior to privatisation, but that was the problem: inconsistent funding.
"Not even intercity is profitable now. The franchise premiums for those dont anywhere near the subsidy for NR."
Wrong. The services are profitable: as a whole they returned £802 million to the government. It's NR's direct grant they don' pay for, and that's a complex little beast. Crossrail alone accounted for a billion in 2014/5.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
I'm afraid you're wrong there - you're allowed to stand on busses, and they can get fairly overcrowded.
Mr. Jessup a limited number of people are allowed to stand on buses. If you look around somewhere near the driver you will see the registered capacity for that type of bus: X passengers seated Y passengers standing where Y is very much less than X. More than that it is illegal and both the driver and the operating company can be prosecuted.
Bus companies are most definitely not entitled legally to cram as many people on board as they can squeeze. Unlike the trains.
Legal limits or not, they're still overcrowded. No space to sit on the floor usually!
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
That's how the American political system works. Just like here where CEO and Chairmen of companies who donate to a political party expects to get a gong.
Very few companies donate these days. Those that do are essentially owned by one person anyway so just a convenient vehicle.
The reason Corbyn cannot admit he was wrong is because if he wasn't wholly correct, then what he was doing was being slightly misleading to make what he feels is a worthy point. That is, spinning.
I wonder how Ed Miliband spends his days now. Shouting a swearing at the television?
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Ed Miliband was not one of the 35 who nominated Corbyn.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
I suspect the chances of you being in an accident on a train which would be mitigated by a seatbelt are significantly lower than in a car.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
I'm afraid you're wrong there - you're allowed to stand on busses, and they can get fairly overcrowded.
Mr. Jessup a limited number of people are allowed to stand on buses. If you look around somewhere near the driver you will see the registered capacity for that type of bus: X passengers seated Y passengers standing where Y is very much less than X. More than that it is illegal and both the driver and the operating company can be prosecuted.
Bus companies are most definitely not entitled legally to cram as many people on board as they can squeeze. Unlike the trains.
The signs on busses are very prominent. The reason why busses are not allowed to cram as many people on should be obvious if you've ever had to stand on a crowded bus.
It's a partial acronym referring to the Righteous-Angry-Masses being packed into trains, much as they were into dirty tenements in the industrial revolution while the man made money off their very sweat and discomfort.
The reason Corbyn cannot admit he was wrong is because if he wasn't wholly correct, then what he was doing was being slightly misleading to make what he feels is a worthy point. That is, spinning.
I wonder how Ed Miliband spends his days now. Shouting a swearing at the television?
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Ed Miliband was not one of the 35 who nominated Corbyn.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
Because trains are far less likely to crash than cars? Edit: And they don't encounter turbulence like planes.
The reason Corbyn cannot admit he was wrong is because if he wasn't wholly correct, then what he was doing was being slightly misleading to make what he feels is a worthy point. That is, spinning.
I wonder how Ed Miliband spends his days now. Shouting a swearing at the television?
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Ed Miliband was not one of the 35 who nominated Corbyn.
Didn't he change the rules?
Yep - he and Harriet must accept the responsibility for that.
The reason Corbyn cannot admit he was wrong is because if he wasn't wholly correct, then what he was doing was being slightly misleading to make what he feels is a worthy point. That is, spinning.
I wonder how Ed Miliband spends his days now. Shouting a swearing at the television?
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Ed Miliband was not one of the 35 who nominated Corbyn.
Didn't he change the rules?
Yes, pre-Miliband you had to have been a member for at least 12 months before you could vote in a leadership election.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
Because trains are far less likely to crash than cars? Edit: And they don't encounter turbulence like planes.
Isn't it also because overcrowding is actually a potential contributor to accidents on buses and planes, rather than a contributor to increasing the consequences of accidents? Whatever the problems of train overcrowding, it doesn't cause crashes.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
They must have some means of gauging when capacity has been breached. I once joined a train at Bristol Temple Meads which couldn't leave the station because there were too many people on board.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
Because trains are far less likely to crash than cars? Edit: And they don't encounter turbulence like planes.
Isn't it also because overcrowding is actually a potential contributor to accidents on buses and planes, rather than a contributor to increasing the consequences of accidents? Whatever the problems of train overcrowding, it doesn't cause crashes.
It'd probably make take-offs and landings a bit tricker if people were milling about on the plane, I guess!
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
I suspect the chances of you being in an accident on a train which would be mitigated by a seatbelt are significantly lower than in a car.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
@MikeSmithson #Traingate isn't as entertaining as the time Osborne was seen travelling to London in a 1st class seat without 1st class ticket
Yup and as entertaining as Labour spads removing antimacassars (thanks again Marquee Mark) to hide the fact they were in first class.
In my opinion Osborne's" offence"was the least awful by a loooooong way.
Sitting in first class with a standard class ticket is a criminal offence - deliberate and knowing fare evasion. On Thameslink at least. Normally they just penalty fare you but sometimes the on train inspectors read out a formal caution - you do not have to say anything but anything you say etc.... and prosecute. Criminal records all round.
Sitting on the floor or hiding antimacassars does not come close.
lying about seat availability to make a political point is the sort of shit that politicians do. it may not be criminal, but its not career enhancing. It just remings us how unfit for office he is.
Osborne didn't commit a crime as he had every intention of paying.. Didnt Mrs Blair have a touch of trouble over a tube ticket???
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
I suspect the chances of you being in an accident on a train which would be mitigated by a seatbelt are significantly lower than in a car.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
But we'd probably have more dead and injured overall due to people being unable to afford the inevitably higher fares and being forced to use more dangerous means of transport.
Ewes are much better for our purposes. Apart from anything else, they are not quite so tall.
On a more serious note, I asked the other day if there was any cretinous avoidable mistake Labour had yet to make. Now we find yet another. It makes you wonder just how much worse things will get.
I've often been on trains where on the face of it there is no seat with people standing and sitting on floors. It is not unusual to discover that there are in fact half empty (non-first class) carriages at the extremity of the train but people can't be bothered to go looking for them, and ultimately are prepared to put up with the incovenience for an hour. That's hardly the fault of the train operator.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbersevery other minute.
How din?
They must have some means of gauging when capacity has been breached. I once joined a train at Bristol Temple Meads which couldn't leave the station because there were too many people on board.
Caught a train from London Paddington to Reading once - there'd been trouble on the line and all trains from Waterloo were cancelled, at 5pm on a week day, so we all ploughed over to Paddington - and in addition to being the world's slowest train it was also literally packed like a sardine tin. June or July, sweltering heat, and I was one of around a dozen stood in the space in front of the doors, not more than a few inches of space, aisles full of standers. Every stop there's be crowds of people who'd normally be getting on but there was no space, and despite the announcer telling everyone they could get off as more trains were following behind, no one did. Took over an hour to get to Reading, and it was the most hellish journey of my life, couldn't even lean to one side or another, just stand up straight the whole time.
If it had a limit on capacity I dread to think what it must have been. Thank gods I travel infrequently.
< Because trains are far less likely to crash than cars? Edit: And they don't encounter turbulence like planes.
Trains certainly do experience a form of turbulence - ever been on a crowded commuter train when the driver has had to throw the brakes on. People go everywhere. Far worse than any turbulence I have ever seen on an aeroplane.
Yes trains are less likely to crash, but when they do (especially when over full) it tends to be pretty bloody.
Anyway to bring this to a close I did start by saying I had a dream. It is clearly never going to happen, too many vested interests as demonstrated here this evening.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
But there would probably be higher risk of such accidents occurring due to the greater number of trains required.
It would be good if they had indicators like in modern carparks to tell you how many empty seats there are in each carriage. It would also provide very useful data for train operators.
My dream, Mr. Glenn is that trains get treated the same as airlines - you buy a ticket you get a seat. That the railways are still allowed to get away with the appalling levels of overcrowding that occurs on commuter lines, is beyond me. It would not be allowed on any other form of transport, purely on safety grounds.
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
For all that it sounds nice, how do you proposed the train companies accommodate the numbers who wish to utilise them? There's only so many trains that can physically run at peak times. Even the underground can't cope in near ideal circumstances with monopoly lines and trains running every other minute.
How do airlines, bus companies and car divers cope? I want to move seven people from my house to, say, Crawley but my car has only five seats with seat-belts. I would be committing a criminal offence to cram all seven in and drive off. Airlines, buses, taxis and every other mode of public transport has similar restrictions.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
I suspect the chances of you being in an accident on a train which would be mitigated by a seatbelt are significantly lower than in a car.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
But we'd probably have more dead and injured overall due to people being unable to afford the inevitably higher fares and being forced to use more dangerous means of transport.
Wasn't that one of the results of 911? So many people stopped flying and took to the road that the death toll climbed steeply.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
I think it was 35 killed, around 70 seriously injured, 415 with minor injuries (which can include cuts and bruises).
That doesn't particularly undermine your point. However, unless passengers in trains wore seatbelts and for the matter of that sat facing the rear of the train, I don't think it would make much difference whether they were standing or sitting.
As for seatbelts and turbulence I always thought it was to prevent unsecured objects/people from crashing around and potentially destabilising the aircraft. Not such a problem on a big jet but as I think you have read Beevor's Stalingrad you will know it caused at least one crash in the Stalingrad airier by the Luftwaffe.
< Because trains are far less likely to crash than cars? Edit: And they don't encounter turbulence like planes.
Trains certainly do experience a form of turbulence - ever been on a crowded commuter train when the driver has had to throw the brakes on. People go everywhere. Far worse than any turbulence I have ever seen on an aeroplane.
Yes trains are less likely to crash, but when they do (especially when over full) it tends to be pretty bloody.
Anyway to bring this to a close I did start by saying I had a dream. It is clearly never going to happen, too many vested interests as demonstrated here this evening.
Don't be silly. What vested interests would we have? It simply doesn't make sense to ban standing on trains, from either an economic or safety viewpoint. And it's not as though you don't have a choice: you can always buy a first-class ticket if you want to be sure of a seat!
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Oh, Ed is to blame for the current mess, but when he watches the media omnishambles playing out he must be screaming "All I did was eat a bacon sandwich!"
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
I think it was 35 killed, around 70 seriously injured, 415 with minor injuries (which can include cuts and bruises).
That doesn't particularly undermine your point. However, unless passengers in trains wore seatbelts and for the matter of that sat facing the rear of the train, I don't think it would make much difference whether they were standing or sitting.
As for seatbelts and turbulence I always thought it was to prevent unsecured objects/people from crashing around and potentially destabilising the aircraft. Not such a problem on a big jet but as I think you have read Beevor's Stalingrad you will know it caused at least one crash in the Stalingrad airlift by the Luftwaffe.
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Oh, Ed is to blame for the current mess, but when he watches the media omnishambles playing out he must be screaming "All I did was eat a bacon sandwich!"
But we'd probably have more dead and injured overall due to people being unable to afford the inevitably higher fares and being forced to use more dangerous means of transport.
Wasn't that one of the results of 911? So many people stopped flying and took to the road that the death toll climbed steeply.
Indeed. I seem to remember it was estimated that an extra 1,500 people died in road traffic accidents in the US as a result of more people choosing to drive rather than fly following 9/11.
The reason Corbyn cannot admit he was wrong is because if he wasn't wholly correct, then what he was doing was being slightly misleading to make what he feels is a worthy point. That is, spinning.
I wonder how Ed Miliband spends his days now. Shouting a swearing at the television?
Personally it's him I blame for the current mess rather than Corbyn. i.e. Who's more responsible for what happens when an imbecile gets power: the imbecile, or the man who made it possible for an imbecile to govern?
Ed Miliband was not one of the 35 who nominated Corbyn.
Didn't he change the rules?
The rules were actually fine. Ma Beckett and Khan have only themselves to blame.
The chances of me being injured by turbulence in an aeroplane are even lower, but in an aeroplane I must have a seat with a belt.
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
Citation required.
As for seatbelts on trains: studies ten years ago showed that they'd cause more deaths in accidents than they'd save. Whilst that sounds counter-intuitive, it does make some sense.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7309332/The-ten-funniest-ever-Yes-Minister-moments.html
Also to emerge today, of course, is that Jeremy actually backed Diane Abbott for the Labour mayor nomination, not Sadiq as was claimed.
He really is a piss poor liar.
1) weight detectors in the seats,
2) some means, say a broken light beam, of counting people on and off, or
3) some sort of person identification system coupled to CCTV.
I guess the last of these would perhaps be the best bet, given advances in video processing.
Sitting on the floor or hiding antimacassars does not come close.
There is though a sort of a camaraderie about squeezing in with the masses on a packed train. Can meet some interesting people as well. My favourite episode was when I was squatting with a group of (unconnected) people who started chatting about some vaguely obscure rock band. Chap who had been a bit quiet eventually piped up to reveal (a complete coincidence!) that he was a member of said band!
The Clapham rail disaster was a disaster because of the way passengers were packed into two of the trains, but get into a train going into Town through Clapham Junction at about 08:00 now and the overcrowding is even worse than it was that fateful day. Some lessons it would seem have been ignored.
As I say in any other method of transport such practises are forbidden by law. On the trains it is a free for all.
I meant choice between transport modes: you can choose bus, coach, car - and sometimes taxi or plane - for many journeys instead of plane.
Replacing most plane journeys in a similar manner is non-trivial.
After inflation the subsidy is now double anything BR got and for several years after Hatfield it was triple.
Not even intercity is profitable now. The franchise premiums for those dont anywhere near the subsidy for NR.
And as for the NR payments being for investment. If they invested as efficiently as BR who electrified the 400 mile long East Coast Main Line and built all the new inter city 225 trains that are still running on the line for £390 million in the mid 80s (about 1 billion now including inflation) they wouldnt need it.
As a comparison, Great Western Electrification to Bristol/Swansea which is half the distance is now estimated to cost 2.8 Billion excluding the new IEP trains which will cost another £3 billion.
The privatised railway is an extravagant producer interest moneypit.
The original Valenta engines were, I think, famous for catching fire (or at least their exhasrs were).
What? It's silly season, that's an ok subject for a headline.
Corbyniocchio story fails to stand up to scrutiny, that sort of thing.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/23/now-hillary-has-a-big-clinton-foundation-problem-too/?postshare=9771471983016396&tid=ss_tw
As a result a 1960s unit was substututed onto the train which collided with the stationary train with catastrophic results the next day at Clapham, the death toll would have been far lower but for that.
I dont know if the vandals were ever caught but I would have given them life for manslaughter.
Bus companies are most definitely not entitled legally to cram as many people on board as they can squeeze. Unlike the trains.
"Not even intercity is profitable now. The franchise premiums for those dont anywhere near the subsidy for NR."
Wrong. The services are profitable: as a whole they returned £802 million to the government. It's NR's direct grant they don' pay for, and that's a complex little beast. Crossrail alone accounted for a billion in 2014/5.
You might want to read the following:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf
I'm surprised Cornyn would use such and imperialist term.
I can't drive my car unless everyone is seated and properly strapped in because, says HMG, it would be too dangerous to do otherwise. So how is it safe to have people packed in like sardines on a commuter train?
450 people were killed or injured at Clapham, that number would have been a lot lower if trains were subject to the same rules as apply to other forms of public transport.
Osborne didn't commit a crime as he had every intention of paying.. Didnt Mrs Blair have a touch of trouble over a tube ticket???
No self-respecting Welshman packs a ram.
Ewes are much better for our purposes. Apart from anything else, they are not quite so tall.
On a more serious note, I asked the other day if there was any cretinous avoidable mistake Labour had yet to make. Now we find yet another. It makes you wonder just how much worse things will get.
If it had a limit on capacity I dread to think what it must have been. Thank gods I travel infrequently.
Yes trains are less likely to crash, but when they do (especially when over full) it tends to be pretty bloody.
Anyway to bring this to a close I did start by saying I had a dream. It is clearly never going to happen, too many vested interests as demonstrated here this evening.
http://tinyurl.com/hvt9lkc
That doesn't particularly undermine your point. However, unless passengers in trains wore seatbelts and for the matter of that sat facing the rear of the train, I don't think it would make much difference whether they were standing or sitting.
As for seatbelts and turbulence I always thought it was to prevent unsecured objects/people from crashing around and potentially destabilising the aircraft. Not such a problem on a big jet but as I think you have read Beevor's Stalingrad you will know it caused at least one crash in the Stalingrad airier by the Luftwaffe.
That doesn't particularly undermine your point. However, unless passengers in trains wore seatbelts and for the matter of that sat facing the rear of the train, I don't think it would make much difference whether they were standing or sitting.
As for seatbelts and turbulence I always thought it was to prevent unsecured objects/people from crashing around and potentially destabilising the aircraft. Not such a problem on a big jet but as I think you have read Beevor's Stalingrad you will know it caused at least one crash in the Stalingrad airlift by the Luftwaffe.
As for seatbelts on trains: studies ten years ago showed that they'd cause more deaths in accidents than they'd save. Whilst that sounds counter-intuitive, it does make some sense.
See 3.1.1 of:
http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2009-report-on-improvements-in-safety-in-train-accidents.pdf
and others.