I was at Bristol Temple Meads this morning, awaiting the 0917 to
Penzance, when I heard one of those announcements saying that some
train would be late on platform 15 (where I was). It explained that the
HST approaching was, sadly, not the 0917.

The train idled (or coasted, whatever!) along the platform, came to a
halt, and everyone left, the service itself terminating. Great, no big
deal. Just hoped within myself it would clear off soon so that my train
wouldn't get too held up.

Then it left. Almost silently.

There was no smoke, no shriek as the rear power car picked up speed and
passed me. The doppler effect was a simple 'whoosh' getting louder then
quieter.

Wow!

As someone living alongside the GWML in Cornwall, I know all about the
noise, smell, and pollution HSTs chuck out. To me, this train was a
revolution.

What do you all make of the engines?



PS: I'm sure it WAS the new-engined train, as the headlights were
different, as featured on the cover of 'Rail' not so long ago.

Erm,

1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
2.  I'm astonished that you find the pollution, smell (sic - have you smelt 
the new fumes?) and noise such a problem with a train in each direction once 
an hour tops in Cornwall.
3.  I would have thought Voyagers give the same amount of noise pollution, 
given the noise re-occurs in every vehicle, rather than just at the ends.
4.  Why do people who choose to live near a railway suddenly find it an 
inconvenience that the train is noisy?
5.  Metal on metal wheels still make up at 50% of the trains noise.
6.  There is a massive engineering trick with the MTU power cars - there is 
no air-to-air interface between the engine room and outside due to the new 
air filter arrangement.  (Try running your engine with the bonnet open 
(Valenta) and closed (MTU)).
7.  Interesting e-mail address of spam@microchipped.co.uk?!

"43127"  Proudly Smokey!!!!!

 wrote in message 
news:1125605786.575873.64540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I was at Bristol Temple Meads this morning, awaiting the 0917 to
> Penzance, when I heard one of those announcements saying that some
> train would be late on platform 15 (where I was). It explained that the
> HST approaching was, sadly, not the 0917.
>
> The train idled (or coasted, whatever!) along the platform, came to a
> halt, and everyone left, the service itself terminating. Great, no big
> deal. Just hoped within myself it would clear off soon so that my train
> wouldn't get too held up.
>
> Then it left. Almost silently.
>
> There was no smoke, no shriek as the rear power car picked up speed and
> passed me. The doppler effect was a simple 'whoosh' getting louder then
> quieter.
>
> Wow!
>
> As someone living alongside the GWML in Cornwall, I know all about the
> noise, smell, and pollution HSTs chuck out. To me, this train was a
> revolution.
>
> What do you all make of the engines?
>
>
>
> PS: I'm sure it WAS the new-engined train, as the headlights were
> different, as featured on the cover of 'Rail' not so long ago.
> 

43127 wrote:


> Erm,
>
> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
>


and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.

1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".

Not at 5am in the morning, I don't!


2.  I'm astonished that you find the pollution, smell (sic - have you
smelt
the new fumes?) and noise such a problem with a train in each direction
once
an hour tops in Cornwall.

I live 50 metres from the track, the exhausts fill my lane and linger
for up to an hour on humid days.


3.  I would have thought Voyagers give the same amount of noise
pollution,
given the noise re-occurs in every vehicle, rather than just at the
ends.

Granted, they do, but a duller tone than the high-pitch shriek and
whoosh.


4.  Why do people who choose to live near a railway suddenly find it an

inconvenience that the train is noisy?

Suddenly?! Always have, mate.


5.  Metal on metal wheels still make up at 50% of the trains noise.

On straight track? Maybe, but I don't hear much.


6.  There is a massive engineering trick with the MTU power cars -
there is
no air-to-air interface between the engine room and outside due to the
new
air filter arrangement.  (Try running your engine with the bonnet open
(Valenta) and closed (MTU)).

I haven't got a car, I'm too young.


7.  Interesting e-mail address of s...@microchipped.co.uk?!

spam@microchipped.co.uk - the three dots are there thanks to queer
Google Groups somehow being unable to fit 'pam' characters from the
address in the email addy section of the header. Not down to me.
Microchipped.co.uk is a web domain I have an email acocunt with. Big
deal.



The point is, MTU class 43s are better than the older ones. Simple.
Live where I do and you'll agree that the current engines are harmful.

That's  S P A M @ microchipped.co.uk, as for some reason Google still
show the three period dots!

Screw H&S!  That's what is buggering up this country....

 wrote in message 
news:1125789125.366090.233050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> 43127 wrote:
>
>> Erm,
>>
>> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
>>
>
> and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
> of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.
> 

wrote in message 
news:1125790768.253010.55410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
>
> Not at 5am in the morning, I don't!
>


So why are you living there then.....?  Have you lived there for over 25 
years?  And if so what about the Westerns and 50's - they were even worse 
and there are plenty of photos on the web to prove it!


>
> 2.  I'm astonished that you find the pollution, smell (sic - have you
> smelt
> the new fumes?) and noise such a problem with a train in each direction
> once
> an hour tops in Cornwall.
>
> I live 50 metres from the track, the exhausts fill my lane and linger
> for up to an hour on humid days.


So why are you living there then?  And that comment is cobblers!  Take 
Reading station - it has more HST's than anywhere.  Fumes from the HST's on 
baking hot days stay for about 1 minute absolute maximum.  That is from a 
standing start so much more than what you will get in when passing in 
countryside.


>
>
> 3.  I would have thought Voyagers give the same amount of noise
> pollution,
> given the noise re-occurs in every vehicle, rather than just at the
> ends.
>
> Granted, they do, but a duller tone than the high-pitch shriek and
> whoosh.


Low or high pitched - noise is noise.  People with thumping car stereos piss 
me off!


>
>
> 4.  Why do people who choose to live near a railway suddenly find it an
>
> inconvenience that the train is noisy?
>
> Suddenly?! Always have, mate.
>


Eh?  Sorry, re-read what you have written.  You have always found it an 
inconvienience that trains are noisy?  So why are you living there then?


>
> 5.  Metal on metal wheels still make up at 50% of the trains noise.
>
> On straight track? Maybe, but I don't hear much.
>


You have a strange hearing frequency response then?!  Does it only allow 
SA084 turbocharger noise in.....?


>
> 6.  There is a massive engineering trick with the MTU power cars -
> there is
> no air-to-air interface between the engine room and outside due to the
> new
> air filter arrangement.  (Try running your engine with the bonnet open
> (Valenta) and closed (MTU)).
>
> I haven't got a car, I'm too young.


Eh?  You are too young?  What, under 17?  I'm wasting my time talking to a 
minor............


>
>
>
>
> The point is, MTU class 43s are better than the older ones. Simple.
> Live where I do and you'll agree that the current engines are harmful.


Don't live where you do then - I don't give a toss, I love Valentas!  And it 
would appear I have loved them almost twice as long as you have been 
alive.........

On 3 Sep 2005 16:39:28 -0700, spam@microchipped.co.uk wrote:


>spam@microchipped.co.uk - the three dots are there thanks to queer
>Google Groups somehow being unable to fit 'pam' characters from the
>address in the email addy section of the header. 


It isn't, it's an anti-spam-harvesting tool.  You can get it to
display a full address by clicking on the ... and typing in a few
characters from a "munged" image, as with some ticket sites etc that
want to stop bots accessing them.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

43127 wrote:


> So why are you living there then.....?  Have you lived there for over 25
> years?  And if so what about the Westerns and 50's - they were even worse
> and there are plenty of photos on the web to prove it!


My parents moved here before I could talk, and we haven't got the
wealth to relocate.



> So why are you living there then?  And that comment is cobblers!  Take
> Reading station - it has more HST's than anywhere.  Fumes from the HST's on
> baking hot days stay for about 1 minute absolute maximum.  That is from a
> standing start so much more than what you will get in when passing in
> countryside.


I live in and amongst three streets at right-angles with just narrow
lanes in between, and high buildings. The 43s start to accelerate to
70mph from 20 alongside, and fumes do get trapped with southerly
prevailing winds.




> Low or high pitched - noise is noise.  People with thumping car stereos piss
> me off!


Through double glazing, a Voyager is a mere rumble, tending to idle
past. Class 43s inevitably cause much greater noise what with
accelerating earlier or something, who gives a toss what it is, they're
about 20DB louder, and it's an irritating noise.



> Eh?  Sorry, re-read what you have written.  You have always found it an
> inconvienience that trains are noisy?  So why are you living there then?


I've not "suddenly" found it an inconveninece; I've never liked the
noise of living in very close proximity to the GWML. Can't afford to
move, this is Cornwall, we're not rich.



> You have a strange hearing frequency response then?!  Does it only allow
> SA084 turbocharger noise in.....?


I don't tend to notice any screeches other than when trains hit the
points from single to double, brakes, and bogeys clattering over joins
in the track, which isn't a problem, especially with double glazing and
background noise from the A30 the other side.



> Eh?  You are too young?  What, under 17?  I'm wasting my time talking to a
> minor............

Actually, I lied. I just don't have a car. At 18, with a good job at
£5/hr, I still can't afford a car, the insurance, the tax, the fuel,
and parking.



> Don't live where you do then - I don't give a toss, I love Valentas!  And it
> would appear I have loved them almost twice as long as you have been
> alive.........


Why don't you try spending a week or two living here, then. You'l soon
lose your sense of awe, and end up hating them. That's NOT an offer, by
the way.

Discussion hereby terminates.

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:31:34 +0100, 43127 wrote in
<431aa2d4$0$97107$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, seen in
uk.railway:

>  wrote in message 
> news:1125789125.366090.233050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > 43127 wrote:
> >
> >> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
> >
> > and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
> > of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.
> 
> Screw H&S!  That's what is buggering up this country....


[quoting corrected]

Nah, what's buggering up this country is the people who don't give a
flying foxtrot about anyone else as long as their selfish little wants
are met.

Such as people who don't give a damn about train drivers going deaf as
long as they get nice loud engines on trains.

Of course, if rles were reversed, those same selfish people would be
the first to be screaming for Something To Be Done about the risk to
their health.


Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the
past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my
colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

43127 wrote:


> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".


Not standing a few feet from them I don't (ie at Reading/Didcot etc).


> 3.  I would have thought Voyagers give the same amount of noise
> pollution, given the noise re-occurs in every vehicle, rather than
> just at the ends.


They don't - for whatever reason - they just don't. Neither do the 180's - 
though lets not mention that god awful noise from the brakes :)


> 4.  Why do people who choose to live near a railway suddenly find it
> an inconvenience that the train is noisy?


It's not an inconvenience for me, but equally why do you have an issue with 
people wanting a quieter environment if one can be made available?

In message , Ross 
 writes

>Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the 
>past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my 
>colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.

That's funny as all loco crews were issued with "ear defenders" their 
name not mine, they were little plugs that went inside the ear before 
entering an engine room.   Oh and IME a 7000 was the noisiest engine 
I've ever come across.
-- 
Clive

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:7gulh194eu0clv45uvhkvfa9lem4s15c76@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:31:34 +0100, 43127 wrote in
> <431aa2d4$0$97107$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, seen in
> uk.railway:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:1125789125.366090.233050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 43127 wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
>> >
>> > and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
>> > of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.
>>
>> Screw H&S!  That's what is buggering up this country....
>
> [quoting corrected]
>
> Nah, what's buggering up this country is the people who don't give a
> flying foxtrot about anyone else as long as their selfish little wants
> are met.


IMHO pointless and ever more restrictive (and expensive) H&S requirements 
are causing the railway to disappear further and further up its own 
self-obsessed backside. At some point the rest of the country will decide 
it's just not worth ploughing billions of pounds into anymore.


> Such as people who don't give a damn about train drivers going deaf as
> long as they get nice loud engines on trains.


Or people on newsgroups who couldn't give a flying foxtrot about the 
opinions of others.


> Of course, if rles were reversed, those same selfish people would be
> the first to be screaming for Something To Be Done about the risk to
> their health.


That's your opinion. I don't necessarily believe that would be the case.


> Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the
> past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my
> colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:32:55 +0100, Clive 
wrote:


>That's funny as all loco crews were issued with "ear defenders" their 
>name not mine, they were little plugs that went inside the ear before 
>entering an engine room.   Oh and IME a 7000 was the noisiest engine 
>I've ever come across.


Given that I got quite bad earache from continuously driving a diesel
Series 3 Land Rover for some time, I can quite believe it...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message <dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Tattersall 
 writes

>> Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the
>> past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my
>> colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.

What sort were these then?
-- 
Clive

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes

>Given that I got quite bad earache from continuously driving a diesel 
>Series 3 Land Rover for some time, I can quite believe it...

I didn't know they were fitted with 16 cylinder Maybach engines?   But 
then again I'm not into Land Rovers.
-- 
Clive

In article ,
Clive   wrote:

>In message , Neil Williams 
> writes
>>Given that I got quite bad earache from continuously driving a diesel 
>>Series 3 Land Rover for some time, I can quite believe it...
>I didn't know they were fitted with 16 cylinder Maybach engines?   But 
>then again I'm not into Land Rovers.


Not so as you'd notice. Instead they had the L-R 2 1/4 litre 4-pot
diesel, an effective means of converting fuel into noise without imparting
forward progress. Good at breaking crankshafts, too. The petrol version
was better, for very limited values of "better".

Andy, former series-3 Landy owner, who was rather sobered to find that
a V8 Range Rover automatic was more economical on fuel than the 2.25L
Landy...

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:32:55 +0100, Clive wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> In message , Ross 
>  writes
>
> >Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the 
> >past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my 
> >colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.
>
> That's funny as all loco crews were issued with "ear defenders" their 
> name not mine, they were little plugs that went inside the ear before 
> entering an engine room.   


ITYF the problem is not from entering the engine rooms but simply from
the high ambient noise level. I can only assume from the cases being
dealt with that the ear defenders issued weren't exactly perfect.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:51:49 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
<dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:7gulh194eu0clv45uvhkvfa9lem4s15c76@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:31:34 +0100, 43127 wrote in
> > <431aa2d4$0$97107$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, seen in
> > uk.railway:
> >>  wrote in message
> >> news:1125789125.366090.233050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > 43127 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
> >> >
> >> > and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
> >> > of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.
> >>
> >> Screw H&S!  That's what is buggering up this country....
> >
> > [quoting corrected]
> >
> > Nah, what's buggering up this country is the people who don't give a
> > flying foxtrot about anyone else as long as their selfish little wants
> > are met.
> 
> IMHO pointless and ever more restrictive (and expensive) H&S requirements 
> are causing the railway to disappear further and further up its own 
> self-obsessed backside. 


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whether or not I (or anyone
else) agree with that opinion. 

AFAICT it's not the H&S requirements which are costing the big money
now; for TOCs it's stock hire, wages and arguably the contractual
regime (in no particular order). 

Network Rail seems to have reduced its costs significantly by bringing
work in-house, and I'm sure that reduction can't wholly be allocated
to not paying for the contractors' profits, and as the wages and basic
costs won't have changed, I can't see any cost other than maintaining
the contractual merry-go-round which can have been reduced.


I note, AAMOI, that the delay regime which was supposedly going to be
dropped as unproductive is now being run with a vengeance, down to
guards being asked to account for 15 second overtime at stations.
Plenty of people chasing around with pieces of paper on my mob, and
believe me they're paid rather more overall than those on my mob who
are chasing after H&S issues. 



> At some point the rest of the country will decide 
> it's just not worth ploughing billions of pounds into anymore.


I think that's quite likely. But unfortunately for the rest of the
country, the politicians won't listen to them on that topic any more
than they listened to those who complain about (the amount of money
being spent on) invading Iraq. All they'll be interested in is "Can we
get re-elected in this marginal seat if we withdraw the trains?"



> > Such as people who don't give a damn about train drivers going deaf as
> > long as they get nice loud engines on trains.
> 
> Or people on newsgroups who couldn't give a flying foxtrot about the 
> opinions of others.


That's about 95% of posters to newsgroups, unfortunately. Even more if
you go to the groups which are rather less genteel than this one.
 


> > Of course, if rles were reversed, those same selfish people would be
> > the first to be screaming for Something To Be Done about the risk to
> > their health.
> 
> That's your opinion. I don't necessarily believe that would be the case.


As I said above, we're all allowed our opinions, and that does include
me even if you would prefer otherwise. 

My opinion as posted is, as is pretty much always the case, based on
the people I have dealt with over the years. My experience of those
people is that those who shout the most about other people's
<whatever>s being unreasonable are the first to demand a similar or
better level of <whatever> for themselves, regardless of its effects
on others. Or, if you want the short version, most people are
hypocrites. If only it were otherwise...

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:19:56 +0100, Clive wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> In message <dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Tattersall 
>  writes
> >> Oh, and before you come the "but it never caused any problems in the
> >> past" line, I'm still handling industrial deafness claims from my
> >> colleagues traceable back to the time spent in locos in the 1970s.
>
> What sort were these then?


John didn't write that, I did, and the answer to your question is
"Don't know, it doesn't get entered on the forms I process".

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

In message , Ross 
 writes

>ITYF the problem is not from entering the engine rooms but simply from 
>the high ambient noise level. I can only assume from the cases being 
>dealt with that the ear defenders issued weren't exactly perfect.

There weren't really high ambient noise levels in the cabs of any locos 
I worked on, the noisiest being the 800's where you sat on top of the 
transmission and the quietest were the 1700's and the 1000's where there 
were two bulkheads between you and the engines.   In my experience the 
steam engines made much more noise in several ways and if your 
footplatemen are trying to claim different them I'm willing to act for 
the defence from an active point of view.
-- 
Clive

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Ross wrote:


> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:51:49 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
> <dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
> > 
> > IMHO pointless and ever more restrictive (and expensive) H&S requirements 
> > are causing the railway to disappear further and further up its own 
> > self-obsessed backside. 
> 
> Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whether or not I (or anyone
> else) agree with that opinion. 
> 
> AFAICT it's not the H&S requirements which are costing the big money 
> now; for TOCs it's stock hire, wages and arguably the contractual 
> regime (in no particular order).


That's for the part that's still working, though, Ross.

I've heard quite a number of hopeful - and by no means implausible - 
proposals greeted with the "but H&S would never allow that" refrain.  
It might not be the only reason that the proposals never got off the 
ground, but it's surely part of it.

43127 wrote:

> Screw H&S!  That's what is buggering up this country....
>
>  wrote in message
> news:1125789125.366090.233050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 43127 wrote:
> >
> >> Erm,
> >>
> >> 1.  Some of us like the "shriek and woosh".
> >>
> >
> > and plenty of those who have to work with them are wanting to get rid
> > of the noise. Some "Health & Safety" reps in particular.
> >


The Valenta is a good engine from a power to weight point of view, but
in terms of exhaust pollution, fuel and oil consumption and noise it is
a late 1960s design that is costing huge amounts of cash to keep
running. In case you hadn't noticed industry has had to modernise in
line with economic and environmental standards which have become
stricter over the last few years, not just in the UK but in all
developed economies. In line with this employers have a duty of care
towards their employees. It's not just drivers but maintenance staff
and station staff, as well as passengers who have to put up with the
noise of these old Valenta engines, add to that the engines are wearing
out and the increasing cost of diesel then it is obvious to any
sensible person that they have to be replaced if HST services are to
continue running.
Now I'm sure all those engineers and designers searched high and low
for an engine which was as noisy, dirty and as expensive to run as the
Valenta but I hope you will accept my apology on their behalf that they
only found a modern design of engine with much lower emissions and fuel
consumption, and being responsible neighbours to those living by the
depots and routes decided that noise was also an important
consideration to be taken into account. Shrieking and whooshing was not
included in the specification. I'm not sure why it was left out,
perhaps they deemed it an unnecessary consideration?

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:06:24 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>I note, AAMOI, that the delay regime which was supposedly going to be
>dropped as unproductive is now being run with a vengeance, down to
>guards being asked to account for 15 second overtime at stations.
>Plenty of people chasing around with pieces of paper on my mob, and
>believe me they're paid rather more overall than those on my mob who
>are chasing after H&S issues. 


Out of interest, how much attention was placed in ye olden days to
dwell time at stations.

I ask because I recall being on the M&SWJR heading towards Cheltenham,
and was in the compartment next to the Guard's Van. At one of the
stations, nobody got on or off, and as the train started to move, the
porter said to the guard "21 seconds!". I assumed that it was recorded
somewhere.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:18:23 +0100, Clive 
wrote:


>I didn't know they were fitted with 16 cylinder Maybach engines?   But 
>then again I'm not into Land Rovers.


You can fit a lot of engines in - but probably not quite that.
However, they are bloody noisy!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Ross wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:51:49 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
> > <dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
> > >
> > > IMHO pointless and ever more restrictive (and expensive) H&S requirements
> > > are causing the railway to disappear further and further up its own
> > > self-obsessed backside.
> >
> > Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whether or not I (or anyone
> > else) agree with that opinion.
> >
> > AFAICT it's not the H&S requirements which are costing the big money
> > now; for TOCs it's stock hire, wages and arguably the contractual
> > regime (in no particular order).
>
> That's for the part that's still working, though, Ross.
>
> I've heard quite a number of hopeful - and by no means implausible -
> proposals greeted with the "but H&S would never allow that" refrain.
> It might not be the only reason that the proposals never got off the
> ground, but it's surely part of it.


Speaking as an ex H & S rep I have to say that the myth that H & S
stops progress is bollocks. When applied properly and sensibly H & S
should save money and time. It's far more expensive to defend claims
and to replace people who are off sick because of work related injuries
and illness than it is to prevent the problems in the first place. The
problem is that people take the H & S argument to its illogical
conclusion and don't think about what they're doing or saying. We have
a situation in my sons' school where the teachers won't touch the
children even if they're struggling with clothing or stuck in deep
farmyard mud (as happened on a recent outing) because they're
frightened of getting sued.

-- 
Malc

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> important consideration to be taken into account. Shrieking and
> whooshing was not included in the specification. I'm not sure why it
> was left out, perhaps they deemed it an unnecessary consideration?


So when can we expect to see these rolled out across the fleet then?

dwb wrote:

> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
> > important consideration to be taken into account. Shrieking and
> > whooshing was not included in the specification. I'm not sure why it
> > was left out, perhaps they deemed it an unnecessary consideration?
>
> So when can we expect to see these rolled out across the fleet then?


Depends who wins the franchise and how the remaining period of the
trials progress. The trial results would be known in fairly short
order, but the franchise result will be early 2006 at a guess. These
things never seem to be announced within schedule.

malc wrote:
 

> When applied properly and sensibly H & S should save money and time. 
> It's far more expensive to defend claims and to replace people who are 
> off sick because of work related injuries and illness than it is to 
> prevent the problems in the first place.


I'm sure that's true. But we can all give far too many examples of
"jobsworth" attitudes from Health & Safety departments that prevent
perfectly safe and sensible practices from going ahead, while failing
to intervene on others that are far less safe.

The obvious one to mention on the railways is that of long trains
stopping at short stations. For several years, it has been [1] the
case that newer trains aren't allowed to stop at stations where both
ends of the train will be on the platform [2]. Yet at the same time,
older trains are allowed to stop at the same stations, in the same
formation, when run by the same TOC and worked by the same crew, on
the same diagram.

And yet with the older stock, there was not even central locking - so
far worse than a passenger opening a door trying to access a short
platform from the wrong carriage - there was nothing to stop
passengers opening the doors at any place or speed they wanted to!


[1] Or "was" - I've not been paying attention, has all the Mk1
slam-door stock run its last?

[2] Except those with SDO. But I've not seen any new stock apart from
the Yorkostars using that. And _that_ was applied in a curious way -
locking out the carriages at both ends ... I thought that the driver
had to be able to access the platform?

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote:


> The obvious one to mention on the railways is that of long trains
> stopping at short stations. For several years, it has been [1] the
> case that newer trains aren't allowed to stop at stations where both
> ends of the train will be on the platform [2].


And yet there are places where this does happen ... but I'm
not telling you where in case it gets stopped ;-)


> And yet with the older stock, there was not even central locking - so
> far worse than a passenger opening a door trying to access a short
> platform from the wrong carriage - there was nothing to stop
> passengers opening the doors at any place or speed they wanted to!


And yet, I can see how one might be less likely to fall out
of a hand-operated door which was not at a platform than
a power-operated one.

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> And yet, I can see how one might be less likely to fall out
> of a hand-operated door which was not at a platform than
> a power-operated one.


How so? I would have thought if anything it would be the other way
round - with a handle-operated door, you have to push it, so you have
already invested energy in moving outwards from the train - with a
sliding door, you just press a button and wait.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:35:31 +0100, Clive wrote in
<e$$y+kATwKHDFwvp@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> In message , Ross 
>  writes
>
> >ITYF the problem is not from entering the engine rooms but simply from 
> >the high ambient noise level. I can only assume from the cases being 
> >dealt with that the ear defenders issued weren't exactly perfect.
>
> There weren't really high ambient noise levels in the cabs of any locos 
> I worked on, the noisiest being the 800's where you sat on top of the 
> transmission and the quietest were the 1700's and the 1000's where there 
> were two bulkheads between you and the engines.   In my experience the 
> steam engines made much more noise in several ways and if your 
> footplatemen are trying to claim different 


They're not. They're claiming, based on medical advice, that their
hearing loss is a result of the time spent working on diesel locos. 

AFAIK all such claims are successful, which leads me to believe that
there must be a viable basis to those claims - "the railway" wouldn't
pay out if they could wriggle out of doing so.

I don't think anyone's playing the "my trains are more noisy than your
trains" gambit, and I also think it reasonable to assume that were
steam still in operation, we'd be seeing far more claims than we
currently are.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:02:10 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Ross wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:51:49 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
> > <dfi0ja$cmf$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
> > > 
> > > IMHO pointless and ever more restrictive (and expensive) H&S requirements 
> > > are causing the railway to disappear further and further up its own 
> > > self-obsessed backside. 
> > 
> > Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whether or not I (or anyone
> > else) agree with that opinion. 
> > 
> > AFAICT it's not the H&S requirements which are costing the big money 
> > now; for TOCs it's stock hire, wages and arguably the contractual 
> > regime (in no particular order).
> 
> That's for the part that's still working, though, Ross.
> 
> I've heard quite a number of hopeful - and by no means implausible - 
> proposals greeted with the "but H&S would never allow that" refrain.  
> It might not be the only reason that the proposals never got off the 
> ground, but it's surely part of it.


As much as I dislike some of the H&S excuses I've seen bandied around,
and indeed some of the H&S wallahs, I tend to think that "H&S
doesn't/wouldn't allow it" is on a par with "Can't do that because of
the Data Protection Act" - i.e. it's a handy excuse for people who
don't particularly want to do a given thing.

I've no doubt that things aren't happening with H&S being given as the
reason, but whether H&S *truly* is the reason is something I'm not
always so sure of any more.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:03:13 +0100, Terry Harper wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:06:24 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >I note, AAMOI, that the delay regime which was supposedly going to be
> >dropped as unproductive is now being run with a vengeance, down to
> >guards being asked to account for 15 second overtime at stations.
> >Plenty of people chasing around with pieces of paper on my mob, and
> >believe me they're paid rather more overall than those on my mob who
> >are chasing after H&S issues. 
> 
> Out of interest, how much attention was placed in ye olden days to
> dwell time at stations. [...]


I'm not sure. I suspect that in ye reale olden dayes, (i.e. when BR
was a "real railway" and had steam on the front of trains, or even
earlier than that), it was possibly/probably monitored quite a lot,
but by ye less-olde olden dayes (called the 1980s and 1990s), I'm not
sure anyone really paid that much attention.
 
Someone, somewhere has now realised that 30 seconds overtime at two
stations means 1 minute late, which in turn can mean loss of path.
Taken long enough for the wheel to turn full circle, but it seems it
may have happened at long last.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Ross"  wrote

>
> Someone, somewhere has now realised that 30 seconds overtime at two
> stations means 1 minute late, which in turn can mean loss of path.
> Taken long enough for the wheel to turn full circle, but it seems it
> may have happened at long last.
>

Someone, somewhere realised that a while ago. From a circular to staff:
'I fear it has not been realised that if a train from Perth to Wick loses
only half a minute at every station, the result on the whole journey is a
loss of over half an hour.' -
T A Wilson, General Manager, Highland Railway, 1898

Peter

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Peter Masson wrote in
<dfl0c1$jki$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, seen in
uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote
> >
> > Someone, somewhere has now realised that 30 seconds overtime at two
> > stations means 1 minute late, which in turn can mean loss of path.
> > Taken long enough for the wheel to turn full circle, but it seems it
> > may have happened at long last.
> >
> Someone, somewhere realised that a while ago. From a circular to staff:
> 'I fear it has not been realised that if a train from Perth to Wick loses
> only half a minute at every station, the result on the whole journey is a
> loss of over half an hour.' -
> T A Wilson, General Manager, Highland Railway, 1898


Unfortunately, somewhere between 1898 and roughly 1988, it was
forgotten again. :(

Hopefully, now it has been rediscovered, we won't see (for example)
GNER trains with a 1 minute station allowance when they (seemingly)
need about 3. 

Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
platform...

Anyway, hopefully we'll get to see some robust allowances and thus
robust timetables.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
>efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
>platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
>arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
>platform...


Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
standing in for a particular coach.

At Reading they have installed signs the whole length of Platform 4
and painted onto the platform surface directions for standard class
passengers to move up the length of the platform away from the
entrance. Great except when a three car turbo turns up on FGWL service
and the passengers are now stood many coach lengths away from where
the train actually stops. Several minutes are then wasted as they
passengers all queue up like sheep to get into the first set of doors,
because they couldn't possibly use the other 5 sets. Of course with
the colour zones, it used to be announced to wait in the Blue Zone for
Thames Trains service but that's gone out of fashion now.

Duncan

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:54:49 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>How so? 


Operating slam doors usually involves leaning, at least in part, out
of the window.  It is probably presumed that if you're not paying
attention while doing this, and therefore don't notice the presence
(or otherwise) of a platform, you really aren't looking hard enough.

Of course, there remains the issue of the blind and partially sighted,
whatever kind of door is in use.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:06:09 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>Someone, somewhere realised that a while ago. From a circular to staff:
>'I fear it has not been realised that if a train from Perth to Wick loses
>only half a minute at every station, the result on the whole journey is a
>loss of over half an hour.' -


It was noticed on Merseyrail, where an extra 10-15 seconds per station
when the door warning bleepers were introduced, and the staff started
using passenger doors with interlocks as opposed the staff ones
without, added up to a 2-minute increase on the Ormskirk-Liverpool
timings, which had otherwise been unchanged since the Link opened in
the late 1970s.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
>efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
>platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
>arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
>platform...


To their credit, at least GNER appear to have "wait here for coach X"
posters on the platforms.  The Wagenstandzeiger seems to be somewhat
lacking elsewhere on IC, though some stations do still use the Zones.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:49:42 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:03:13 +0100, Terry Harper wrote in
>, seen in uk.railway:
 
>> Out of interest, how much attention was placed in ye olden days to
>> dwell time at stations. [...]
>
>I'm not sure. I suspect that in ye reale olden dayes, (i.e. when BR
>was a "real railway" and had steam on the front of trains, or even
>earlier than that), it was possibly/probably monitored quite a lot,
>but by ye less-olde olden dayes (called the 1980s and 1990s), I'm not
>sure anyone really paid that much attention.
> 
>Someone, somewhere has now realised that 30 seconds overtime at two
>stations means 1 minute late, which in turn can mean loss of path.
>Taken long enough for the wheel to turn full circle, but it seems it
>may have happened at long last.


Yes, the occasion I mention was probably pre-Nationalisation, or just
after, and the train in question was probably hauled by an
outside-frame 4-4-0.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

wrote in message 
news:1125605786.575873.64540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> What do you all make of the engines?


It's a shame becuase the noise of an HST leaving is quite something - but 
it's progress and it's certainly more favourable than replacing the HST's 
with more plastic, so it gets support from me.
-- 
Michael Rodgers, Plymouth UK

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:48:54 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>malc wrote:
> 
>> When applied properly and sensibly H & S should save money and time. 
>> It's far more expensive to defend claims and to replace people who are 
>> off sick because of work related injuries and illness than it is to 
>> prevent the problems in the first place.
>
>I'm sure that's true. But we can all give far too many examples of
>"jobsworth" attitudes from Health & Safety departments that prevent
>perfectly safe and sensible practices from going ahead, while failing
>to intervene on others that are far less safe.
>
>The obvious one to mention on the railways is that of long trains
>stopping at short stations. For several years, it has been [1] the
>case that newer trains aren't allowed to stop at stations where both
>ends of the train will be on the platform [2]. Yet at the same time,
>older trains are allowed to stop at the same stations, in the same
>formation, when run by the same TOC and worked by the same crew, on
>the same diagram.
>
>And yet with the older stock, there was not even central locking - so
>far worse than a passenger opening a door trying to access a short
>platform from the wrong carriage - there was nothing to stop
>passengers opening the doors at any place or speed they wanted to!
>
>
>[1] Or "was" - I've not been paying attention, has all the Mk1
>slam-door stock run its last?


A few left. And of course Lymington, but not too many short platforms
there :-)


>
>[2] Except those with SDO. But I've not seen any new stock apart from
>the Yorkostars using that. And _that_ was applied in a curious way -
>locking out the carriages at both ends ... I thought that the driver
>had to be able to access the platform?


Would the driver still be able to exit using either a staff door (in
trains with cab doors) or passenger doors with the appropriate key?
Would this be considered sufficient?

SDO of some description is in use on the new SR stock and, AAUI,
Adelantes.

"1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message 
news:qvdsh19rcakrvat5id7tqcplbn2d3meo5q@4ax.com...

> SDO of some description is in use on the new SR stock and, AAUI,
> Adelantes.


Do the 9-car Meridians have it? They'll need it for Long Eaton and other 
places.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
>
> >Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
> >efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
> >platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
> >arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
> >platform...
>
> To their credit, at least GNER appear to have "wait here for coach X"
> posters on the platforms.  The Wagenstandzeiger seems to be somewhat
> lacking elsewhere on IC, though some stations do still use the Zones.


At Wakefield Westgate (up platform) GNER have two sets of such posters,
one blue, for 225's, and one white, for GNERstars.


-- 
Regards

Mike

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:20:16 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
> >efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
> >platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
> >arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
> >platform...
> 
> To their credit, at least GNER appear to have "wait here for coach X"
> posters on the platforms.  [...]


Yup, but they're often ignored, as indeed are the announcements. 
What they don't have at Peterborough but could do with is a sign at
the bottom of the stairs saying something like "Standard accommodation
coaches A-E, 1st class coaches G-M, please see signs on the platform
for the location of each coach".

The Peterborough problem could most easily be dealt with by someone
wandering down the platform 5 minutes before the train is due to
arrive checking whether the people congregating at the south end of
the platform are travelling 1st or STD.
"Are you travelling 1st class sir/madam?"
"No"
"You'll need to move along the platform to where the ramp is or just
past there, then; this end of the platform is where the 1st class will
be".

Easy, really. And it would save a couple of minutes on each
departure...

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:13:50 +0100, Duncan wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
> >efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
> >platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
> >arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
> >platform...
> 
> Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
> companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
> reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
> passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
> standing in for a particular coach. [...]


They were a good idea if information was given as to their meaning,
which unfortunately often wasn't the case. :-(

But I'd like to see them back again.
 
To give GNER their due, most of their stations do have posters saying
something along the lines of "Wait here for coach C" and some even
tell you whether it's first class or standard, and there are separate
posters for HST/225 and for GNE* ("White Rose"). However, they're not
always very visible (some stations use only A4 posters) and they
assume that people are looking for a specific coach.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:kp4uh1taua0togkrntce4sjvepotf68m70@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:13:50 +0100, Duncan wrote in
> , seen in uk.railway:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
>> >efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
>> >platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
>> >arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
>> >platform...
>>
>> Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
>> companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
>> reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
>> passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
>> standing in for a particular coach. [...]
>
> They were a good idea if information was given as to their meaning,
> which unfortunately often wasn't the case. :-(
>
> But I'd like to see them back again.
>
> To give GNER their due, most of their stations do have posters saying
> something along the lines of "Wait here for coach C" and some even
> tell you whether it's first class or standard, and there are separate
> posters for HST/225 and for GNE* ("White Rose"). However, they're not
> always very visible (some stations use only A4 posters) and they
> assume that people are looking for a specific coach.


But GNER also continue to have some stupidly tight timings, such as KX - 
Peterborough in 45mins with a 9-car HST. As it was rare to do it in that 
time with an 8-car, it must be nigh-on impossible now, yet GNER haven't 
adjusted the running times AFAIAA.

"Duncan"  wrote in message 
news:2d4sh1h4dflfr6lqekvtvc694jq953rich@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:27 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
>
>>Or (in that particular case) perhaps we'll see GNER making more
>>efforts to ensure that people are informed about which bit of the
>>platform they need to stand on rather than waiting for the train to
>>arrive and then watching everyone move six coach lengths down the
>>platform...
>
> Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
> companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
> reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
> passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
> standing in for a particular coach.
>
> At Reading they have installed signs the whole length of Platform 4
> and painted onto the platform surface directions for standard class
> passengers to move up the length of the platform away from the
> entrance. Great except when a three car turbo turns up on FGWL service
> and the passengers are now stood many coach lengths away from where
> the train actually stops. Several minutes are then wasted as they
> passengers all queue up like sheep to get into the first set of doors,
> because they couldn't possibly use the other 5 sets. Of course with
> the colour zones, it used to be announced to wait in the Blue Zone for
> Thames Trains service but that's gone out of fashion now.


IME all the markings, signs and announcements have been a complete waste of 
time. Not due to a lack of effort on the part of FGW, but the on-going 
stupidity of the public, many of whom seem to lose any mental function once 
they get near the railway, and therefore insist on waiting in the area 
nearest the entrance, which is normally the first class end.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:00:59 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>But I'd like to see them back again.


They are still there at some stations, and appear on the displays.
Crewe and Milton Keynes Central both use them, to name two.  I haven't
heard "Please board the train in the Blue Zone" for RR at Preston of
late, though.  

I'd prefer a proper Wagenstandzeiger as VT provided very briefly one
year (only for the Mk3 sets), but I suppose I can cope ;)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:


> Operating slam doors usually involves leaning, at least in part, out
> of the window.  It is probably presumed that if you're not paying
> attention while doing this, and therefore don't notice the presence
> (or otherwise) of a platform, you really aren't looking hard enough.


I remember some of the Mk1s had internal handles - did those get taken
out of use at some stage?

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

1577+2260 wrote:


> Would the driver still be able to exit using either a staff door (in
> trains with cab doors) or passenger doors with the appropriate key?
> Would this be considered sufficient?


I think the reason was _not_ because the driver needed access, perhaps
I worded it badly. It was that if the driver's cab was beyond the end
of the platform, the driver couldn't guarantee that the first door
back was _on_ the platform, so the doors shouldn't be released.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:22:36 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
<dfn7kt$5dq$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:kp4uh1taua0togkrntce4sjvepotf68m70@4ax.com...


[snip for bandwidth]

> > To give GNER their due, most of their stations do have posters saying
> > something along the lines of "Wait here for coach C" and some even
> > tell you whether it's first class or standard, and there are separate
> > posters for HST/225 and for GNE* ("White Rose"). However, they're not
> > always very visible (some stations use only A4 posters) and they
> > assume that people are looking for a specific coach.
> 
> But GNER also continue to have some stupidly tight timings, such as KX - 
> Peterborough in 45mins with a 9-car HST. As it was rare to do it in that 
> time with an 8-car, it must be nigh-on impossible now, yet GNER haven't 
> adjusted the running times AFAIAA.


Aye, I've noticed that. Mind you, they never seem ultra-punctual
arriving at Peterborough from KGX with 91+MkIV combos, so I suspect
that not only are the point-to-point times too tight, but there's also
insufficient headway between trains.

If that is the case, with too little time between WAGN and GNER over
(say) Welwyn Viaduct combined with over-tight timings, it's no wonder
that absolute punctuality (as opposed to charter punctuality) isn't
wonderful.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:25:44 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
<dfn7qp$q2t$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> IME all the markings, signs and announcements have been a complete waste of 
> time. Not due to a lack of effort on the part of FGW, but the on-going 
> stupidity of the public, many of whom seem to lose any mental function once 
> they get near the railway, and therefore insist on waiting in the area 
> nearest the entrance, which is normally the first class end.


This is why I propose the platform-walker approach at Peterborough
(specifically platform 4); it might not be a traditional railway
response to the problem, but someone politely enquiring about class of
travel and/or the coach in which seats are reserved and then gently
pointing people in the right direction has to be better and more cost
effective (in the long term) than the shout-at-them-over-the-tannoy
approach currently used.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:mtjuh1pb0loe43ev6llde6jvcnoi9k2dou@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:25:44 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
> <dfn7qp$q2t$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
>
> [...]
>> IME all the markings, signs and announcements have been a complete waste 
>> of
>> time. Not due to a lack of effort on the part of FGW, but the on-going
>> stupidity of the public, many of whom seem to lose any mental function 
>> once
>> they get near the railway, and therefore insist on waiting in the area
>> nearest the entrance, which is normally the first class end.
>
> This is why I propose the platform-walker approach at Peterborough
> (specifically platform 4); it might not be a traditional railway
> response to the problem, but someone politely enquiring about class of
> travel and/or the coach in which seats are reserved and then gently
> pointing people in the right direction has to be better and more cost
> effective (in the long term) than the shout-at-them-over-the-tannoy
> approach currently used.


Agreed, but the chances of it happening are probably roughly 0% because a) 
Reading staff seem to struggle to dispatch trains, let alone doing anything 
else and b) FGW's solution to everything is to put up more and more notices 
and stickers [1].

[1] Such as the quiet coach, where staff do naff all to enforce it. Or what 
look like home made signs in each coach directing people to the buffet. It 
makes stuff all difference as most of the punters can't read, it seems. It 
does provide amusement, though, when someone walks the entire length of 
standard class, gets to the TGS and goes all the way back again...

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> dwb wrote:
> 
>>jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>important consideration to be taken into account. Shrieking and
>>>whooshing was not included in the specification. I'm not sure why it
>>>was left out, perhaps they deemed it an unnecessary consideration?
>>
>>So when can we expect to see these rolled out across the fleet then?
> 
> 
> Depends who wins the franchise and how the remaining period of the
> trials progress. The trial results would be known in fairly short
> order, but the franchise result will be early 2006 at a guess. These
> things never seem to be announced within schedule.
> 


Have they been moved about? I swear I saw 004 at Temple Meads tonight 
without 009 at the other end (or vice-versa, I am a bit drunk).

Either way, I couldn't tell you about the noise because there were a few 
sprinters chugging away behind me.

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> Shrieking and whooshing was not
> included in the specification. I'm not sure why it was left out,
> perhaps they deemed it an unnecessary consideration?


Can shreiking and whooshing not be retrofitted though? ;)

eat

-- 
<><|"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure
....|      is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:15:20 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
<dfnl99$7s9$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:mtjuh1pb0loe43ev6llde6jvcnoi9k2dou@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:25:44 +0100, John Tattersall wrote in
> > <dfn7qp$q2t$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
> >
> > [...]
> >> IME all the markings, signs and announcements have been a complete waste 
> >> of time. Not due to a lack of effort on the part of FGW, but the on-going
> >> stupidity of the public, many of whom seem to lose any mental function 
> >> once they get near the railway, and therefore insist on waiting in the area
> >> nearest the entrance, which is normally the first class end.
> >
> > This is why I propose the platform-walker approach at Peterborough
> > (specifically platform 4); it might not be a traditional railway
> > response to the problem, but someone politely enquiring about class of
> > travel and/or the coach in which seats are reserved and then gently
> > pointing people in the right direction has to be better and more cost
> > effective (in the long term) than the shout-at-them-over-the-tannoy
> > approach currently used.
> 
> Agreed, but the chances of it happening are probably roughly 0% because a) 
> Reading staff seem to struggle to dispatch trains, let alone doing anything 
> else and b) FGW's solution to everything is to put up more and more notices 
> and stickers [1].


Adding notices seems to be the "in thing" on the railway at the
moment. Some of them are appallingly bad, almost unreadable, even when
positioned in a useful location (such as the "lift available" signs at
Lincoln).



> [1] Such as the quiet coach, where staff do naff all to enforce it. 


I've come to the conclusion that quiet coaches are a complete waste of
time, simply because the users have no respect for the concept. 
I generally choose the quiet coach on GNER simply because it's rarely
reserved to the hilt, meaning I can generally get a seat, but I've
given up on expecting people to be anything like quiet. 

On my last trip back from London a family with boisterous kids came
in, sat at a table, noticed the "quiet coach" labels on the window and
I overheard (couldn't miss it, really)...
     Woman "Oh, this is the quiet coach"
     Man "It doesn't matter".
followed by an hour of the kids shouting and screaming until we got to
Peterborough.
Even had they not been there, there were umpteen people making loud
telephone calls, so it would hardly have been quiet. And, in true
style, during the ticket check the kids and telephoners were quiet, so
there was nothing for the staff to enforce even had they been willing
to do so.

[...]

> makes stuff all difference as most of the punters can't read, it seems. It 
> does provide amusement, though, when someone walks the entire length of 
> standard class, gets to the TGS and goes all the way back again...


You shouldn't say things like that, y'know. You'll get accused of
being me and a disgrace to the railway/humanity/whatever. ;-)

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Ross wrote:


> I've come to the conclusion that quiet coaches are a complete waste of
> time, simply because the users have no respect for the concept.
> I generally choose the quiet coach on GNER simply because it's rarely
> reserved to the hilt, meaning I can generally get a seat, but I've
> given up on expecting people to be anything like quiet.
>


I travelled from Bristol to Glasgow in the Quiet Coach of a Voyager
last weekend and for a long stretch of the journey a loud-voiced lady
could be heard throughout the coach chatting away on her mobile. At one
point I heard her complaining to her friend about all the children who
were making such a racket in the Quiet Coach!

A big flaw with quiet coaches seems to be that they are not recognised
by online booking systems. When I buy tickets on the Trainline, I often
find I've been given a reservation in the Quiet Coach whether I want it
or not.

It's understandable that some passengers will flout the Quiet Coach
rules if they've been put their against their wishes.

Andy Kirkham



Andy Kirkham

On 8 Sep 2005 04:16:05 -0700, Andy Kirkham wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:
[...]

> A big flaw with quiet coaches seems to be that they are not recognised
> by online booking systems. When I buy tickets on the Trainline, I often
> find I've been given a reservation in the Quiet Coach whether I want it
> or not.
> 
> It's understandable that some passengers will flout the Quiet Coach
> rules if they've been put their against their wishes.


I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are allocated coaches
they don't want to be in just because the system (or its operators)
are too poor to offer the options.

However, MX on GNER is that the flouters have *not* been reserved in
that coach; they choose to sit there and then show absolutely no
respect for the concept. Expecting others to show respect for
something they themselves disrespect (as per the woman you mention) is
just typical of the hypocrisy evinced by too many people in this
country. :(

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:g40vh1tsrv9plb7ia6d4imvr0iccp1n3ls@4ax.com...

>> makes stuff all difference as most of the punters can't read, it seems. 
>> It
>> does provide amusement, though, when someone walks the entire length of
>> standard class, gets to the TGS and goes all the way back again...
>
> You shouldn't say things like that, y'know. You'll get accused of
> being me and a disgrace to the railway/humanity/whatever. ;-)


Doesn't make it any less true, though!

:-)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:00:59 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:13:50 +0100, Duncan wrote in
>, seen in uk.railway:

>> Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
>> companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
>> reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
>> passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
>> standing in for a particular coach. [...]
>
>They were a good idea if information was given as to their meaning,
>which unfortunately often wasn't the case. :-(


Maybe it depending on the region / TOC when they were first formed.
Great Western seemed ok to me, they included information on the zones
in their timetable booklets, on posters at the station and as a part
of the announcements. Whether many passengers listened is another
matter. I think the introduction of the Adelante trains on Great
Western killed their usage in the end.

Duncan

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:25:44 +0100, "John Tattersall"
 wrote:


>IME all the markings, signs and announcements have been a complete waste of 
>time. Not due to a lack of effort on the part of FGW, but the on-going 
>stupidity of the public, many of whom seem to lose any mental function once 
>they get near the railway, and therefore insist on waiting in the area 
>nearest the entrance, which is normally the first class end.


At Reading they resorted to installing barriers at the entrance to the
platform to force people away from the First Class area.

What gets me is that even during the morning rush hour loads of people
stand in completely the wrong place for their services even though
most would be regular travellers. Yet they don't seem to learn that
day after day they are stood in the wrong place. 

Duncan

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:06:54 +0100, Duncan wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:00:59 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >> Like the old colour zones which Intercity introduced but the private
> >> companies decided didn't fit in with their brand image for some
> >> reason? These always seemed to be a good idea to me, allowing
> >> passengers to narrow down which part of the platform they should be
> >> standing in for a particular coach. [...]
> >
> >They were a good idea if information was given as to their meaning,
> >which unfortunately often wasn't the case. :-(
> 
> Maybe it depending on the region / TOC when they were first formed.
> Great Western seemed ok to me, they included information on the zones
> in their timetable booklets, on posters at the station and as a part
> of the announcements. Whether many passengers listened is another
> matter. 


The problem with the railway, and I know its something that the
railway is aware of, is that we give information in the ways we think
are best, which generally means the ways you mention above.
Unfortunately, they're not always the ways that would be best in any
given circumstance for the users.

Even more unfortunately, the methods that would be best for the users
vary greatly between users and sometimes even the users themselves
aren't sure what would work except that current methods don't.

Given that, the old ways continue to be used, sometimes adequately,
sometimes not.

Dog alone knows how we handle the problem, though. 

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:16:00 +0100, Duncan wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> What gets me is that even during the morning rush hour loads of people
> stand in completely the wrong place for their services even though
> most would be regular travellers. Yet they don't seem to learn that
> day after day they are stood in the wrong place. 


We get this at Lincoln with our dogbox workings. On platform 6 we
always stop them with the cab close to the High Street end, because
that's where the Ready to Start button (to the signaller) is.

And yet people always congregate at the bottom of the stairs, meaning
that when trains arrive they have to walk (admittedly only a coach
length or so) and then we get one-door-syndrome afflicting them all.

I know CT isn't exactly the sort of operation which attracts people,
but most of our pax are repeat users - and yet they stand where they
know the train won't stop.

People are strange.


Mind you, we also get the ultra-intelligent stoodent-types who catch
the 16:00 Peterborough each day, which each day leaves from platform
5, and each day they wait on (bay) platform 4 because "these trains
*always* go from here". <sigh>

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:15:20 +0100, "John Tattersall"
 wrote:


>"Ross"  wrote in message 
>news:mtjuh1pb0loe43ev6llde6jvcnoi9k2dou@4ax.com...
>> This is why I propose the platform-walker approach at Peterborough
>> (specifically platform 4); it might not be a traditional railway
>> response to the problem, but someone politely enquiring about class of
>> travel and/or the coach in which seats are reserved and then gently
>> pointing people in the right direction has to be better and more cost
>> effective (in the long term) than the shout-at-them-over-the-tannoy
>> approach currently used.
>
>Agreed, but the chances of it happening are probably roughly 0% because a) 
>Reading staff seem to struggle to dispatch trains, let alone doing anything 
>else and b) FGW's solution to everything is to put up more and more notices 
>and stickers [1].
>
>[1] Such as the quiet coach, where staff do naff all to enforce it.


I most be lucky then as in my daily commute I very rarely see people
on their phones in the quiet coaches [1] and can't remember seeing any
FGW guard walk past any such passenger. Those passengers who do use
their phones are normally quickly pointed out the errors of their ways
by fellow passengers. On my journey home today the guard explained the
quiet coach policy to two foreign passengers sat together using their
mobiles on an Adelante service.

Oddly enough in my experience mobile usage is more likely in the
ex-Rio set which have fewer signs / head rests about it being a quiet
coach so maybe they do have some affect?

[1] At least during the weekdays. Weekends are a different matter.


>Or what 
>look like home made signs in each coach directing people to the buffet. It 
>makes stuff all difference as most of the punters can't read, it seems. It 
>does provide amusement, though, when someone walks the entire length of 
>standard class, gets to the TGS and goes all the way back again...


Some people are so 'blind' that even a huge flashing sign would not be
able to help. 

I like the ones who have to double check by attempting to open the
door to the conductors' office that there is definitely no buffet
hiding behind the door marked 'Senior Conductor'.

Duncan

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:14:02 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>Adding notices seems to be the "in thing" on the railway at the
>moment. Some of them are appallingly bad, almost unreadable, even when
>positioned in a useful location (such as the "lift available" signs at
>Lincoln).


The railways round here are the same, recently about 15 new double
sided free standing posters holder were installed at Reading. Yet in
places basic signage is missing, like coming out of the car park lifts
you are meet by the normally closed peak-hours only ticket office, yet
no signage to the main ticket office or the trains. It isn't
infrequent for passengers to have to ask how to get into the station.
A homemade A4 sign has now appeared, hardly a professional approach.

The directions signs on the platforms aren't much better having been
overstickered so many times over the years with different initiatives
that they are now inconsistent.

Southern seems to have the right idea having recently replaced all
their station signage at most, if not all, their stations to make them
look professional and consistent.

Contrast to FGWL and others who oversticker the old NSE signs with
their logos despite the text on the sign being almost so faded it
can't be read. I don't get why they just don't oversticker the whole
sign replacing the text on the sign as well.


>> [1] Such as the quiet coach, where staff do naff all to enforce it. 
>
>I've come to the conclusion that quiet coaches are a complete waste of
>time, simply because the users have no respect for the concept. 
>I generally choose the quiet coach on GNER simply because it's rarely
>reserved to the hilt, meaning I can generally get a seat, but I've
>given up on expecting people to be anything like quiet. 


Surprising the quiet coaches on FGW seem to be self-policing on
weekdays. Which is a bonus as this coach normally has loads of spare
seats and often tables as the lemmings stand in coaches further down
the train.

Duncan

"Duncan"  wrote in message 
news:1171i1d5d60pro1en6n2kpj3javhona4nq@4ax.com...


> Some people are so 'blind' that even a huge flashing sign would not be
> able to help.
>
> I like the ones who have to double check by attempting to open the
> door to the conductors' office that there is definitely no buffet
> hiding behind the door marked 'Senior Conductor'.


Regular occurence, that one. Funniest I've seen was a woman who *insisted* 
to the train manager that her son was sat beyond the TGS van door, as she'd 
walked the length of the train and she definitely hadn't passed him. This 
carried on for about five minutes, until the TM asked if her son was the 
driver. "No". "Well the driver is the only person through there." Well, it 
kept me amused, anyway!

Ross wrote:


> We get this at Lincoln with our dogbox workings. On platform 6 we
> always stop them with the cab close to the High Street end, because
> that's where the Ready to Start button (to the signaller) is.
>

....

> And yet people always congregate at the bottom of the stairs, meaning
> that when trains arrive they have to walk (admittedly only a coach
> length or so) and then we get one-door-syndrome afflicting them all.
> 
> I know CT isn't exactly the sort of operation which attracts people,
> but most of our pax are repeat users - and yet they stand where they
> know the train won't stop.


Probably preparing for the last-minute platform alteration.

Charlie

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:57:16 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>Some people are so 'blind' that even a huge flashing sign would not be
>able to help. 


LOL! I know exactly what you mean, have that problem at work.

'Scuse me mate, where's the toilets in here?'
'Just over there sir, <points> see the great big sign saying
'toilets'?'
'Ahh yes, thanks'

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:11:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<aG2Ue.11105$VB1.3928@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > We get this at Lincoln with our dogbox workings. On platform 6 we
> > always stop them with the cab close to the High Street end, because
> > that's where the Ready to Start button (to the signaller) is.
[...]
> > And yet people always congregate at the bottom of the stairs, meaning
> > that when trains arrive they have to walk (admittedly only a coach
> > length or so) and then we get one-door-syndrome afflicting them all.
> > 
> > I know CT isn't exactly the sort of operation which attracts people,
> > but most of our pax are repeat users - and yet they stand where they
> > know the train won't stop.
> 
> Probably preparing for the last-minute platform alteration.


That's Nottingham, not Lincoln. 

Except on the (very rare) occasion that the signallers cock up, we
know about platform alterations here well in advance, and we advertise
them.

In any case, the only alteration possible from 6 is to 7, which is the
other face of the island and can easily be accessed by walking through
the nice big archway that's next to where the front door of the unit
would be stopped.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:11:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Ross wrote:
>
>> We get this at Lincoln with our dogbox workings. On platform 6 we
>> always stop them with the cab close to the High Street end, because
>> that's where the Ready to Start button (to the signaller) is.
>>
>
>...
>
>> And yet people always congregate at the bottom of the stairs, meaning
>> that when trains arrive they have to walk (admittedly only a coach
>> length or so) and then we get one-door-syndrome afflicting them all.
>> 
>> I know CT isn't exactly the sort of operation which attracts people,
>> but most of our pax are repeat users - and yet they stand where they
>> know the train won't stop.
>
>Probably preparing for the last-minute platform alteration.


Or just waiting where the seats and awning are?? (If any, I am not
familiar with Lincoln.)

This particular stopping practice does sound like staff convenience
taking precedence over passenger needs..
-- 
Peter Lawrence

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:35:10 GMT, Peter Lawrence wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:11:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme
>  wrote:
> 
> >Ross wrote:
> >
> >> We get this at Lincoln with our dogbox workings. On platform 6 we
> >> always stop them with the cab close to the High Street end, because
> >> that's where the Ready to Start button (to the signaller) is.
> >> [...]
> >> And yet people always congregate at the bottom of the stairs, meaning
> >> that when trains arrive they have to walk (admittedly only a coach
> >> length or so) and then we get one-door-syndrome afflicting them all.
> >> 
> >> I know CT isn't exactly the sort of operation which attracts people,
> >> but most of our pax are repeat users - and yet they stand where they
> >> know the train won't stop.
> >
> >Probably preparing for the last-minute platform alteration.
> 
> Or just waiting where the seats and awning are?? (If any, I am not
> familiar with Lincoln.)


Nope, seats are spread along the platform and the awnings continues
another coach length or so beyond where we stop. Come to think of it,
there's another bench (generally empty) there too.
 


> This particular stopping practice does sound like staff convenience
> taking precedence over passenger needs..


We stop in the same place with one, two or three car sets. We stop
where we do because the TRTS is there, and yes, that's convenience.
The alternative with a dogbox is we stop at the bottom of the stairs,
waste a minute of our two minute station allowance walking to the TRTS
and, not so incidentally, stop the train at a point at which it can't
be seen from either waiting room, whereas from our normal stopping
point it can be seen from both (there's no tannoy in the waiting
rooms, for some reason).

Stopping where we do also puts the driver adjacent the leading
information monitor and the guard closer to those at the bottom of the
stairs, the guards then being in a position to answer questions off
latecomers.

Overall I think stopping where we do *is* more convenient for the
majority of passengers, or at least those who don't decide to
congregate at the bottom of the stairs.


Mind you, on platform 5 they have a habit of congregating around and
in the platform exit door, thus making it awkward for people to get on
and off the platform. That's irritating, whereas the behaviour on
platform 6 is merely interesting in terms of studying human nature.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Duncan wrote:


> I most be lucky then as in my daily commute I very rarely see people
> on their phones in the quiet coaches


I don't understand what's so magical about mobile phones.  A properly 
used mobile phone (I mean: set for vibrate ringing, no silly noises 
every time a key is pressed, and spoken into properly) is quieter than 
someome talking across the table to another passenger, and for sure a 
lot quieter than squalling brats, or drunken squaddies having a 
sing-song.

I realise that the ruling about mobile phones and other electronic 
devices is not aimed at well-bahaved users, but at those who make a 
nuisance of themselves; but if there's going to be a quiet coach, I 
don't see why it shouldn't be quiet.  It seems to me that in any 
announcements about the quiet coach there's an exclusive emphasis on 
electronic devices: this only tempts the families with squalling 
brats, and other sources of noise nuisance, to believe that the rules 
don't mention them.