Rail Boycott to Heighten Awareness of Safety issues
Alan Macro
travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
(http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
ahead of the boycott.
--
Alan Macro
al...@macro.org.uk
Campaigning for better railway passenger safety -
http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm
Andy Forbes
.....cheeky bugger.....
...and with that I shall bid you good day
Andy
Suburbia: Where they tear out all the trees
and then name the streets after them.
DJ Taz
london by national express or some other bus firm and probably more safe.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone boycotted the rail till further notice??
Any views anyone?
Taz
www.oioisaveloy.fish(replace the fish with a net)
David Lecomber
Alan Macro <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk> wrote:
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
Great. With accidents on the road being far more likely per passenger
mile than on the railways all that extra newspaper coverage of dead
road users will add greatly to the cause of safety on the railways.
It's stupid, dangerous, publicity-seeking nonsense and I won't be
joining you in it. I know you were on that fateful train, but that
does not excuse this foolishness. Why not do something like wear
ribbons, wave placards, refuse to pay (except in 1p coins), and so on
instead?
David
--
dsl@_______________
____comlab.ox.ac.uk
Clive D.W. Feather
luncheon-meat.org.uk> writes
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
By encouraging people to use a less safe form of transport ?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
JNugent
>Surely (I don't want to cause a flame war here on this) its cheaper into
>london by national express or some other bus firm and probably more safe.
>Wouldn't it be better if everyone boycotted the rail till further notice??
>Any views anyone?
Good idea. I've been doing it for years.
LM Collis/BH Williams
unless there's more than a dozen American tourists on.....
"DJ Taz" <t...@OiOiSICKSaveloy.Net (remove sick)> wrote in message
news:sjb5nd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Surely (I don't want to cause a flame war here on this) its cheaper into
> london by national express or some other bus firm and probably more safe.
>
> Wouldn't it be better if everyone boycotted the rail till further notice??
>
> Any views anyone?
>
James Farrar
luncheon-meat.org.uk> writes
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
I'll just take a less safe form of transport to work, shall I?
Actually, I hope a lot of people take this up so I can get a seat.
--
James Farrar <fly...@redhotant.co.uk>
Gary Jones
>
> Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
I know this is sensitive but...
How on earth would the boycott help ?
{From a pax who nearly got that train}
--
Gazza
~Anarchism is a game at which the police can beat you~
Tony Miles
Gary Jones wrote:
> Alan Macro wrote:
> >
> > Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> > travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
> > She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
> I know this is sensitive but...
> How on earth would the boycott help ?
>
Indeed - will she follow it by organising a coach boycott to raise the profile of
the hundreds of buses and coaches caught in an illegal condition in spot checks
every year, a car boycott against what is a hugely more dangerous form of travel.
A day where hundreds or thousands of extra road users are created would, I would
guess, increase the number of accidents that happen on that day. Assuming there is
even one more fatality that there would have otherwise been I presume the
organisers of the boycott would cope with this on their consciences?
There must be a better way for those concerned to keep their campaign in the
public eye than by creating a more dangerous situation for a day.
Tony
Al Grant
news:8h44ld$os2$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> In article <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Alan Macro <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk> wrote:
> >Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> >travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove
Crash.
> >She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
> mile than on the railways
That claim only has relevance if you can convince the person
to whom you are making it that it applies to them.
The figure of 20:1 road:rail fatalities that is often claimed,
based on past accident statistics, includes in the road fatalities
many categories of drivers which the statistics show (and the
insurers consider) to be of high risk, such as motorcyclists,
young drivers in small cars etc.
What is the ratio of road:rail fatalities when the statistics are
restricted to, say, 30-40 year old professionals? Or occupants
of modern vehicles with safety features?
Do you have any statistical evidence _at all_ that rail is safer
per mile for a 30-40 year old professional than a modern large
car or four-wheel drive?
(uk.transport: apologies for relaunching this thread).
Jack Howard
In article <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alan Macro <alan@no-
luncheon-meat.org.uk> writes
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
>You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
>(http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
>ahead of the boycott.
Stupid, idiotic nonsense.
Sorry Alan, I know you were on the HST, but this media-driven obsession
with "total safety at all and any cost" has GOT to be stopped.
I do not want to live in a nanny state, where every move anyone makes is
tripple-checked for obsessive safety - do you?
All that campaigns like this do is to add ever more layers of ever
sillier red-tape to the business of running transport services - look at
the farcical stupidity that now surrounds the acceptance of new trains
into service - has any of this actually improved anything that matters?
< Note Spamtap - reply to me (at) stormshadow (dot) co (dot) uk >
--
- Jack Howard, speaking for himself.
Midnight's Darksite: http://www.enchantress.org.uk
Leeds 2000 - Death of The Duchess - End of an era.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
"Al Grant" <ag...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> The figure of 20:1 road:rail fatalities that is often claimed,
> based on past accident statistics, includes in the road fatalities
> many categories of drivers which the statistics show (and the
> insurers consider) to be of high risk, such as motorcyclists,
> young drivers in small cars etc.
>
> What is the ratio of road:rail fatalities when the statistics are
> restricted to, say, 30-40 year old professionals? Or occupants
> of modern vehicles with safety features?
There have clearly been zero fatalities of occupants of modern vehicles
with safety features on rail. ;-)
Ebenezer Scrooge
|In article <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alan Macro writes
|
|>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
|>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
|>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
|
|Actually, I hope a lot of people take this up so I can get a seat.
The thing that gets me about this entire idea is the assumption that
anyone who matters (and I'm deliberately insinuating that the public
*don't*) is going to pay any real attention.
The TOCs won't: they're going to lose minimal revenue; most commuters
use season tickets, so they've already paid to travel that day, and I
doubt many leisure travellers are going to pay much attention to the
boycott; even if they do they'll likely just make the journey on
another occasion.
Railtrack won't. They don't get revenue from the punters, they'll
still get paid as much as they normally do. As far as the media is
concerned they're the villains of the piece, so what's new there?
They're not going to suddenly say "Yea, Oh Lord, we have been
*converted*! ATP will be fitted of the instant!"
The Guvmint will do the normal spin'n'spout but take no action; after
all, what action can it take?
The Media will scream and shout as relevantly as ever - providing
nothing else happens, like todays Hammersmith Bridge bomb. If
something else happens the boycott will be relegated to page 94...
The staff? We know what we think of the entire system, and we also
know that no-one ever listens to us anyway. Mind you, if no-one
travels we get a nice quiet day, so we're not bothered either way.
The public - yeah, OK, I'll include the public. They watch the telly
and think "Ooh, those trains are/were unsafe". So what? If they never
use trains, frankly it doesn't matter what they think. If they *do*
use trains, are they going to stop? Unlikely. If they're marginal,
well, the crash would likely have frightened them off anyway.
So what's the point?
And, heading for Devil's Advocate mode, let's just say that the
travelling public pays no attention at all to the boycott? Trains run
in with their normal loads and maybe a couple of dozen people from the
action groups protest, whilst commuters look on in bemusement. It's
going to make the boycotters look *very* marginal and IMO lead to them
losing any lobbying influence they may have had.
--
Prof. E. Scrooge, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
New to uk.railway? Read the Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.railinfo.freeserve.co.uk/faq/index.html
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Alan Macro schrieb:
> Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
And who is going to organize a 365 day car boycott?
hajo
--
2.1. Required Header lines
2.1.1. From
The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the person who
sent the message, in the Internet syntax. (RFC 1036)
anybody
keen to improve safety deliberately using a less safe form of transport is
not very practical.
Alan Macro <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ian G Batten
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@demon.net> wrote:
> In article <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alan Macro <alan@no-
> luncheon-meat.org.uk> writes
> >Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> >travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>
Anyone who thinks small-scale consumer boycotts of massive companies are
of the slightest purpose beyond providing light amusement is beyond that
sort of reasoning.
ian
--
PGP: http://www.batten.eu.org/~igb/pgpsignatures/20000601/175249.18565.asc
John
>I'll just take a less safe form of transport to work, shall I?
Well said - after all there are plenty to choose from - everything
except rail in fact.
>Actually, I hope a lot of people take this up so I can get a seat.
My sentiments entirely - in fact I'll make a special journey in the
hope of a little extra space - and of course to support what is still
the safest means of transport by far.
John
<jayk...@btinternet.com>
Ian Johnston
: Anyone who thinks small-scale consumer boycotts of massive companies are
: of the slightest purpose beyond providing light amusement is beyond that
: sort of reasoning.
I'm not sure about that. Financially, of course, the effect will be
negligable, but in the circumstances the railway companies may get a
good deal of adverse and unwelcome publicity. I still think it's a
stupid idea, though.
Ian
David Lecomber
Al Grant <ag...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>"David Lecomber" <not.this.address@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:8h44ld$os2$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>The figure of 20:1 road:rail fatalities that is often claimed,
>based on past accident statistics, includes in the road fatalities
>many categories of drivers which the statistics show (and the
>insurers consider) to be of high risk, such as motorcyclists,
>young drivers in small cars etc.
>
So, this rather kind campaign actually endangers me, a cyclist, even
more by putting more cars out there. Great, offload the minor risk
of rail travel onto me in the form of a major risk.
David
--
dsl@_______________
____comlab.ox.ac.uk
Stephen Down
train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
might not have been the case!
This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
In future, all railway lines should be AT LEAST 200m from any other line
to ensure that an accident could not ensue from a near-miss like this.
--
stevie d
see a pin, pick it up, all day long you'll have a pin
Dave Root
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
Which is going to do nothing apart from convincing some people that
rail *isn't* safe, and make them switch to alternatives. So the
railway's turnover (and thereby its ability to invest in improvements)
goes down, whilst the number of road users goes up, reducing safety.
I join all the other respondents so far in hoping that this initiative
turns out to be a damp squib.
--
Dave Root
daveroot(a)btinternet.com
http://www.quackduck.freeserve.co.uk/
John Murray
news:8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove
Crash.
> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
I did consider this very carefully when I first read about it as I scheduled
to make a rail trip to Hoyhead on Monday to go to Ireland and I could as
easily go by car for that journey. However I will do my journey by train as
originally planned.
I totally agree with the sentiments and I totally condemn Railtrack's
behaviour since the crash:
1) The unsuccessful appeal against the HSE ruling.
2) The writ against Thames Trains BEFORE the enquiry has concluded
3) The smear campaign against Driver Hodder and the accusation he was using
a mobile phone which has been disproved.
By their actions Railtrack are trying to make out that they played no role
in the crash and yet (not wishing to pre-empt the enquiry):
a) There is a possibility that the track circuit was faulty due to a poor
joint as highlighted in one of the HSE reports.
b) The bodged arrangement of the signal to save money.
c) The revelation that signallers are instructed to wait before dealing with
a SPAD on a main line.
Privatisation is the distaster many people expected while the company's are
taking huge amounts of profit from passengers and the taxpayer. However, I
cannot see what the boycott would achieve. I have already written to my MP.
I echo the sentiments that I wish there was the same hysteria about road
accidents. I witnessed a fatal pile-up on the M6 last November involving a
shunt of several artics after a car cut across the path after the driver
thought he would miss his exit. I looked hard for a mention in the press
the following day. but nothing. It was certainly the worst crash I have
ever seen.
Rail safety is important and public confidence needs to be built up.
Accidents are not the only area. Attacks on passengers are on the increase
yet the operators are doing there best to keep in quiet. I have been a
victim of an unprovoked drunken attack myself while travelling by train and
found the operators response (NSE at the time) appalling and contemptable.
However the LRPC intervened after I wrote to them, and I got a very positive
response from them. After this NSE wrote to me and said they "regretted the
initial cursory reply".
This supported my view that rail safety, or lack of it, is largely a
cultural issue throughout the industry and I don't think much has changed.
--
John Murray
jo...@railnet.co.uk
www.railnet.co.uk
Robin Payne
> train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
> travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
> fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
> might not have been the case!
>
> This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
> HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
Why why why? If they are on different tracks that have been cleared for
that speed, how is it dangerous at all?
> In future, all railway lines should be AT LEAST 200m from any other line
> to ensure that an accident could not ensue from a near-miss like this.
I don't see how this is a near miss? If the trains are on different tracks
then this is not a near miss, because that would imply they were at risk of
colliding.
Do you then think that there should be 200m between a line opperating at
125mph and lineside obstacles? So should the channel tunnel be 200m radius?
Sorry, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls.
Robin
Sam Holloway
wrote:
>Early this afternoon, hundreds of passengers felt a severe jolt as their
>train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
>travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
>fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
>might not have been the case!
Tres drole... :-/
-----------------------
Sam Holloway
s...@samholloway.co.uk
www.samholloway.co.uk
-----------------------
Rupert
>> Early this afternoon, hundreds of passengers felt a severe jolt as their
>> train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
>> travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
>> fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
>> might not have been the case!
>>
>> This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
>> HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
[snip response]
Well, it made me laugh. And I'm ill.
--
La terre est bleue comme une orange/Jamais une erreur les mots ne mentent pas
Ebenezer Scrooge
|I totally agree with the sentiments and I totally condemn Railtrack's
|behaviour since the crash:
|
|1) The unsuccessful appeal against the HSE ruling.
I personally consider it very fair. HMRI had cleared that layout as
safe - and then, after the accident, claimed it wasn't? Yeah, right.
To *not* have appealed against the HSE ruling would have left the
entire system in a very dodgy position, because it would have been
accepting that HSE/ROI clearance as "safe" wasn't worth the paper it
was written on.
|2) The writ against Thames Trains BEFORE the enquiry has concluded
All the railway parties have writs flying. It's part of the internal
insurance claim and naff all to do with the inquiry.
Ebenezer Scrooge
|Sorry, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls.
Have you no sense of irony, man?
Ian G Batten
Andy Flowers <aflo...@girdlers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8h64d8$1as$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
> <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
> >Anyone who thinks small-scale consumer boycotts of massive companies are
> >of the slightest purpose beyond providing light amusement is beyond that
> >sort of reasoning.
>
> the dumping of an oil rig somewhere?
I think there was, but the emphasis is on ``small-scale''. The boycott
of Nestle' for its alleged policy of encouraging bottle feeding in the
third world is morally quite correct, but in the end futile: the effort
expended on the tiny size of it would be better spent on more visible
lobbying.
> Without wanting to get embroiled in the rights or wrongs of this sort of
> process any company that puts profit before safety (and there's
> certainly enough evidence coming out that this is indeed the case) will
> only sit up and listen when its precious profits are threatened.
But a small boycott won't have the slightest effect. Boycotting South
African produce may have made you feel better during apartheid (and,
although I religiously avoided buying SA product, it did strike me as a
little odd that everyone quite happily bought Israeli citrus fruit) but
its net effect wasn't significant.
ian
--
PGP: http://www.batten.eu.org/~igb/pgpsignatures/20000602/110331.20294.asc
Dave Fossett
[Apparently deadly serious reply snipped]
> Sorry, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls.
Maybe you ought to get down to your library and look up the word "humour". You
may find it valuable in later life if you added it to your vocabulary rightaway.
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, JAPAN
Rupert
>Dave Root <use...@quackduck.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3936c032...@news.btinternet.com...
>>
>> railway's turnover (and thereby its ability to invest in improvements)
>
> Do you really thiink the connection between fares and improvements
>is this straight forward?
>
>> goes down, whilst the number of road users goes up, reducing safety.
>
> Why does road safety get reduced when road users increase,
>and how many people get to trains without using roads?
<post_type=taste_of_own_medicine>
Car weenies get no sympathy here.
N Finnigan
Robin Payne
>
Sorry, that early in the morning, I don't.
Robin
Jonathan Marten - Network Service Providers Division
> Accidents are not the only area. Attacks on passengers are on the
> increase yet the operators are doing there best to keep in quiet. I
> have been a victim of an unprovoked drunken attack myself while
> travelling by train and found the operators response (NSE at the
> time) appalling and contemptable. However the LRPC intervened after
> I wrote to them, and I got a very positive response from them.
> After this NSE wrote to me and said they "regretted the initial
> cursory reply".
So what would you have expected the TOC to do? They have no powers to
stop drunken passengers or even known troublemakers from travelling.
On the train nobody, whether guard, security staff or even the BTP,
has the power to detain anyone for any length of time, and their
ability (from a legal POV) to even physically restrain someone until
they can be handed over to the police is questionable. Even if they
can be caught, handed over to the police and eventually appear in
court, the offender will be given a derisory sentence supervised by a
bleeding heart social worker who thinks that the offender will be
"reformed" by kindness and a free holiday abroad. And the very next
Saturday night they will be on the train again, bothering (or worse)
another passenger.
Perhaps NSE shouldn't have given you a cursory reply, but they should
have told the truth - "Sorry, but we can't do anything about attacks
on passengers on our trains, because the law won't allow us to."
Writing to your MP about that situation would be far more productive
than any amount of weeping about the supposed evils of privitisation.
--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer Network Systems Bracknell, UK
jonatha...@uk.sun.com Sun Microsystems
Andrew Grantham
Damn, I missed it.
I thought I'd've noticed a couple of trains go past me at speed -
(especially if they were in the Wesley Church where I've been all
morning)
Anyone get the numbers?
Hmm - why don't you try sending this story to The Mirror. See if they
would print it... :)
--
Andrew Grantham
Rupert
So that's why your shirts are so creased =P
Jonn Elledge
news:8h7p3v$6h0$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > Early this afternoon, hundreds of passengers felt a severe jolt as their
> > train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
> > travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
> > fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
> > might not have been the case!
> >
> > This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
> > HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
>
> that speed, how is it dangerous at all?
>
> > In future, all railway lines should be AT LEAST 200m from any other line
> > to ensure that an accident could not ensue from a near-miss like this.
>
> I don't see how this is a near miss? If the trains are on different
tracks
> then this is not a near miss, because that would imply they were at risk
of
> colliding.
>
> Do you then think that there should be 200m between a line opperating at
> 125mph and lineside obstacles? So should the channel tunnel be 200m
radius?
>
>
I think it's what's known in the trade as irony...
Jonn
christi...@cableinet.co.uk
perhaps we should all stay indoors!!
christi...@cableinet.co.uk
<cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alan Macro <alan@no-
>luncheon-meat.org.uk> writes
>>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
>By encouraging people to use a less safe form of transport ?
>
>--
Here Here!!
David Hansen
<jack.howard@[127.0.0.1]> wrote this:-
>>You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
>>(http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
>>ahead of the boycott.
>
>Stupid, idiotic nonsense.
Yes.
I have marked the date in my diary. It is a day when I will do
something fairly unusual and use the train. I urge anyone reading this
to do the same.
>I do not want to live in a nanny state, where every move anyone makes is
>tripple-checked for obsessive safety - do you?
Part of the trouble is that these people only want triple checking for
the railways. If someone was to suggest that they concentrate their
attention on the ten people killed every day on the roads they would
no doubt exhibit a blank expression.
David Hansen | david...@NO.spidacom.co.SPAMuk | PGP email preferred
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number 5432274D
Due to the amount of spam now killing e-mail I have modified my address
to reply remove SEND NO SPAM.
Graeme Wall
"Alan Macro" <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk> wrote:
> Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
> You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
> (http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
> ahead of the boycott.
>
She wants everyone to risk killing themselves on the roads, seems a funny way
to promote safety. I will certainly not take part in such a stupid idea.
Given the almost daily rantings in the press about railway safety, I don`t
see that it is not in the public eye.
--
Graeme Wall
Cynicism is disillusioned idealism
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
David Hansen <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes:
> >I do not want to live in a nanny state, where every move anyone makes is
> >tripple-checked for obsessive safety - do you?
>
> Part of the trouble is that these people only want triple checking for
> the railways. If someone was to suggest that they concentrate their
> attention on the ten people killed every day on the roads they would
> no doubt exhibit a blank expression.
But the railways are different; you pay someone to take you from A to B in
a vehicle and route and speed of their choice, rather than taking
responsibility for it - and the vehicle and your route and your speed and
so on - yourself.
The same distinction applies to 'planes and 'busses that you pay to be
transported within.
That's why people react differently.
An analogy; one is outraged to get bad or even poisonous food in a
restaurant, but if you cook for yourself and it doesn't quite turn out as
you intended, you're not that bothered.
In the one case, you've paid supposed experts so it damned well better be
right; in the other, you are responsible for your own actions.
- Huge
John Murray
<jonatha...@uk.sun.com> wrote in message
news:8ghvgzs...@uk.sun.com...
<snip>
>
> So what would you have expected the TOC to do?
>
I think that fare paying passengers should expect reasonable security weh
travelling by train as well as the TOC's staff. While on board cameras are
a good move in this direction, I feel that the removal of guards on many
services has made the problem worse. An obvious and high profile staff
presence throughout, i.e. the guard walks through the train constantly (like
a DLR Train Captain) rather than sits in the rear cab as is the case on many
trains in the former NSE area where guards are still employed. This won't
eliminate attacks, but will certainly reduce them. The LRPC agreed with me
100% on this point. In my case the train guard refused to get involved in
the incident and would not help me despite the fact I had a bleeding nose,
it was another passenger with a mobile phone who called the Police and
ambulance at the next station.
I believe it to be a false economy to withdraw staff from stations at night
as well as DOO. It reduces public confidence and does deter people from
travelling alone (ask your female colleagues!). The cost of repairing the
vandalism which occurs at many unstaffed stations must far exceed the wage
bill of leaving staff in place, but then the railways are run by bean
counters.
I echo your views on positive action, BTP are ineffective. All I ask is a
more effective deterent in the form of a visible staff presence. The New
York subway now has attended cars the position of which is marked on the
platform, perhaps we can learn from them.
Dave Root
>Dave Root <use...@quackduck.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3936c032...@news.btinternet.com...
>>
>> railway's turnover (and thereby its ability to invest in improvements)
>
> Do you really thiink the connection between fares and improvements
>is this straight forward?
Er no, I did not say anything about a straight forward connection, did
I? Are you suggesting that there is *no* connection at all?
>> goes down, whilst the number of road users goes up, reducing safety.
>
> Why does road safety get reduced when road users increase,
If some people who would normally travel by rail (more safe) instead
travel by road (less safe) then more people are less safe. Hardly
rocket science.
>and how many people get to trains without using roads?
Few if any. Why?
Your entire post seems rather pointless.
James Farrar
<rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, that early in the morning, I don't.
>
>So that's why your shirts are so creased =P
*slap*
--
James Farrar <fly...@redhotant.co.uk>
Rupert
wrote:
>In article <3937b714...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>, Rupert
><rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:01 +0100, "Robin Payne" <rc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> |Sorry, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls.
>>>>
>>>> Have you no sense of irony, man?
>>>
>>>Sorry, that early in the morning, I don't.
>>
>>So that's why your shirts are so creased =P
>
>*slap*
Oh come on, it wasn't that bad...
John M Chapman
<Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>>
>to promote safety. I will certainly not take part in such a stupid idea.
>
>Given the almost daily rantings in the press about railway safety, I don`t
>see that it is not in the public eye.
Its just another typical reaction from people who simply want revenge,
not a good rail system. If you really want a safe railway then lets stop
all trains from moving - but we would still get lots of accidents. I
read in the paper today than on average a child ventures onto railway
track every 15 minutes - if only the press would pick up on issues like
that and focus attention where small amounts of money would really save
lives then we would all be better off than demanding pedantic adherence
to rules and squandering billions on things like ATP which will be lucky
to save more than an average one life a year.
--
John M Chapman
Graeme Wall
Andy Flowers <aflo...@girdlers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8h64d8$1as$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
> <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
> >Anyone who thinks small-scale consumer boycotts of massive companies are
> >of the slightest purpose beyond providing light amusement is beyond that
> >sort of reasoning.
>
> Wasn't there a consumer boycott of Shell garages in Germany that stopped
> the dumping of an oil rig somewhere?
>
Hardly small scale, IIRC Shell Germany`s takings went down by over a third in
a couple of days. OTOH the boycott here went unnoticed.
Michael Rodgers
"Alan Macro" <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
> travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove
Crash.
> She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
> (http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to
passengers
> ahead of the boycott.
Good idea. I'll walk. And breath in lots of car fumes. And probably nearly
get hit by some plank in a white van.
--
Michael Rodgers, Plymouth UK
http://www.network-southeast.co.uk - The NSE Page
http://www.network-southeast.co.uk/games - Free, fun, trivia!
Spamtrapped: Remove INTERCITY to reply
John Sullivan
you can pass on now if you don't like it)
Yn erthygl <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, sgrifenodd Alan Macro
<al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk>
>Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>
>You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
>(http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
>ahead of the boycott.
>
>--
>Alan Macro
>al...@macro.org.uk
>Campaigning for better railway passenger safety -
>http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm
>
>
>
>
>
Please explain to me how I can get to work from New Beckenham to Canary
Wharf without using the train?
If I don't use the train, I can't get to work. I am not going to give up
a day's work just because some f*cking idiot with sh*t for brains has
got some bee in her bonnet about one of the safest and quickest modes of
transport in the UK.
Makes you wonder what this woman has to do all day, if she comes up with
stupid ideas like this.
--
John Sullivan
-------------
Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
Peter Smithson
>That claim only has relevance if you can convince the person
>to whom you are making it that it applies to them.
>
>The figure of 20:1 road:rail fatalities that is often claimed,
>based on past accident statistics, includes in the road fatalities
>many categories of drivers which the statistics show (and the
>insurers consider) to be of high risk, such as motorcyclists,
>young drivers in small cars etc.
Do you have any age adjusted stats that show motorcyclists to be less
safe than other road users?
--
Windsor & District MAG - http://bigfoot.com/~wadmag
nik morgan
Go by car or preferably Motorcycle
NM
Carl Bowman
news:3936C1D0...@york.ac.oook...
> Early this afternoon, hundreds of passengers felt a severe jolt as their
> train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
> travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
> fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
> might not have been the case!
>
> This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
> HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
>
> to ensure that an accident could not ensue from a near-miss like this.
I saw one of these trains stop at a station and THE DOORS OPENED!!! People
(some of them women and children) could have fallen out onto the platform
(which was made out of CONCRETE) and BEEN KILLED!! Other people were able to
just, well, GET ON to this obviously DANGEROUS train!!!! If another train
ran into the same platform at the same time (which it didn't, but it could
have done, maybe, perhaps) it might have CONFUSED the passengers!!!!!!
Prescott MUST be SHOT immediately!!
Ebenezer Scrooge
|This won't eliminate attacks, but will certainly reduce them.
In the same way that having Bill-The-Security-Guard reduces
shoplifting?
If someone is going to attack you, the presence of a bloke in a blue
uniform with (1) no power to do anything and (2) a family to worry
about (so he's not going to go for heroics) is not going to stop them.
It might be nice to *think* that a uniformed presence will stop them,
but it won't.
--
Prof. E. Scrooge, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
New to uk.railway? Read the Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.railinfo.freeserve.co.uk/faq/index.html
Michael Rodgers
"nik morgan" <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote in message
news:3938CF01...@direct.a2000.nl...
> > If I don't use the train, I can't get to work. I am not going to give up
> > a day's work just because some f*cking idiot with sh*t for brains has
> > got some bee in her bonnet about one of the safest and quickest modes of
> > transport in the UK.
> >
> > Makes you wonder what this woman has to do all day, if she comes up with
> > stupid ideas like this.
> > --
> > John Sullivan
> > -------------
> > Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
> > remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
>
> Go by car or preferably Motorcycle
Which, by staggering coincidence, are significantly more dangerous forms of
transport than rail.
nik morgan
So what, They are also very practical ways of getting from/to the points you
mention. The statement about not being able to get to work is bollox. You could
even easily cycle that far
if you don't have a driving licence.
NM
Michael Rodgers
"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8hb02m$620$1...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8havd1$2jom0$1...@fu-berlin.de>, "Michael Rodgers"
<n...@network-southeastINTERCITY.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> Go by car or preferably Motorcycle
> >
> >Which, by staggering coincidence, are significantly more dangerous forms
of
> >transport than rail.
>
>
> >Spamtrapped: Remove INTERCITY to reply
>
escaping
> from killfiles.
I have never changed ISP's, having been with Force9 for 3 years now. I have
always had that particular spam trap, and my email address only changed
recently due to the purchase of a domain name.
Barry Salter
Providers Division wrote:
>So what would you have expected the TOC to do? They have no powers to
>stop drunken passengers or even known troublemakers from travelling.
<pedant> Yes they do. It's clearly written in the Byelaws and National
Conditions of Carriage. </pedant>
<quote from NCoC>
39. Refusal of access
Any person who a Train Company believes is likely to act in a
riotous, disorderly or offensive manner may be refused access to, or may
be required to leave, trains, platforms or stations.
</quote from NCoC>
I don't have a copy of the Byelaws to hand, but I suspect they say much
the same thing.
HTH,
Barry
--
Barry Salter, barr...@salterg.demon.co.uk
PGP Key ID: 0x4AED8F75. Available from <http://wwwkeys.pgp.net>
Also available by mailing pgp...@salterg.demon.co.uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!
John Murray
news:7fnhjs8pkpaoek39j...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:27:21 +0100, "John Murray" wrote in uk.railway:
>
> |This won't eliminate attacks, but will certainly reduce them.
>
> In the same way that having Bill-The-Security-Guard reduces
> shoplifting?
>
> but it won't.
> --
I totally disagree, having seen how it works elsewhere particularly abroad.
Having a uniformed presence makes people feel more comfortable, and hence
more people travel, then the situation is self-policing.
Also from my own work. Attacks on public and staff have occured at quiet
times not when we are busy and introducing a security guard on Saturdays
(when 99% of attacks take place) did reduce it but not totally eliminate it.
As the manager I have the incident logs to prove it, the reduction was
marked. In the six months to June 1999 (before security was stepped up) we
had 7 assaults on staff, 4 on members of the public and 5 acts of serious
vandalism. After the security was stepped up, we had 1 attack on staff none
on the public and 1 act of serious vandalism in the following 6 months. I
accept the view from Chester Police that we moved the problem elsewhere, but
at least our staff and customers were more safe.
The portable radios we issued to staff were the biggest deterrent in the
main, although on one occasion it did enflame the situation as the assailant
tried to get the staff member's radio from him. Still you can't win them
all, but on balance things improved.
Personally, I would like to see all grippers with portable radios, which is
common abroad. I noted in the USA that many grippers are armed, but maybe
that is going too far.
I appreciate that a guard has himself to protect, but he should have the
means to summon assistance readily to protect himself and passengers.
As a regular visitor to Ireland, I have noticed that the sort of behaviour
we see on trains is not tolerated on the ship. Indeed, anyone who starts
anything is usually wrestled to the ground by heavies (after appropriate
warnings) and detained until the Police or Garda arrive. I have witnessed
this a few times in a year of making a weekly trip. The same applies on
aircraft. There is a charge of endangering marine or aviation safety, why
not the same thing for trains? I know some rail staff who feel strongly on
this issue.
N Finnigan
> "N Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Dave Root <use...@quackduck.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3936c032...@news.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> railway's turnover (and thereby its ability to invest in improvements)
> >
> > Do you really thiink the connection between fares and improvements
> >is this straight forward?
>
> Er no, I did not say anything about a straight forward connection, did
> I? Are you suggesting that there is *no* connection at all?
Yes. Capital for improvements often comes from capitalists
who expect future returns from higher usage at lower fares.
For an example, see British Telecom since privatisation.
OTOH Manchester Metrolink have put up peak time fares
because the trams are overcrowded, and can not be improved.
> >> goes down, whilst the number of road users goes up, reducing safety.
> >
> > Why does road safety get reduced when road users increase,
>
> If some people who would normally travel by rail (more safe) instead
> travel by road (less safe) then more people are less safe. Hardly
> rocket science.
If a Scotsman moves to England, what happens to the
average IQ in both countries? The presence of more mature,
calmer people on the roads may improve the overall safety.
> >and how many people get to trains without using roads?
>
> Few if any. Why?
The increase in road users would therefore be very small.
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>John Sullivan wrote:
>
>> **** WARNING ***** This post contains strong language (lower down, so
>> you can pass on now if you don't like it)
>>
>> Yn erthygl <8h4308$kj6$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, sgrifenodd Alan Macro
>> <al...@no-luncheon-meat.org.uk>
>> >Claire Jones (mailto:cjo...@mcmuk.com) is organising a boycott of rail
>> >travel on 6th June 2000 to mark eight months since the Ladbroke Grove Crash.
>> >She is trying to keep the issue of rail safety in the public eye.
>> >
>> >You can help her by downloading her leaflet from my website
>> >(http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm) and distributing it to passengers
>> >ahead of the boycott.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Alan Macro
>> >al...@macro.org.uk
>> >Campaigning for better railway passenger safety -
>> >http://www.macro.org.uk/rail-safety.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Please explain to me how I can get to work from New Beckenham to Canary
>> Wharf without using the train?
>>
>> a day's work just because some f*cking idiot with sh*t for brains has
>> got some bee in her bonnet about one of the safest and quickest modes of
>> transport in the UK.
>>
>> Makes you wonder what this woman has to do all day, if she comes up with
>> stupid ideas like this.
>> --
>> John Sullivan
>> -------------
>> Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
>> remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
>
That's just the point! My rail journey (changing at Lewisham) takes 45
minutes door-to-door. If I go by car, it will probably take me 45
minutes (or more) to get to the queue for the Blackwall Tunnel, and it
is far more dangerous than travelling by train. I have never ridden a
motorcycle in my life, and I have no intention of starting now.
>
>NM
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>Michael Rodgers wrote:
>
>> "nik morgan" <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote in message
>> news:3938CF01...@direct.a2000.nl...
>> > > a day's work just because some f*cking idiot with sh*t for brains has
>> > > got some bee in her bonnet about one of the safest and quickest modes of
>> > > transport in the UK.
>> > >
>> > > Makes you wonder what this woman has to do all day, if she comes up with
>> > > stupid ideas like this.
>> > > --
>> > > John Sullivan
>> > > -------------
>> > > Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
>> > > remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
>> >
>> > Go by car or preferably Motorcycle
>>
>> transport than rail.
>> Michael Rodgers, Plymouth UK
>> http://www.network-southeast.co.uk - The NSE Page
>> http://www.network-southeast.co.uk/games - Free, fun, trivia!
>> Spamtrapped: Remove INTERCITY to reply
>
>mention. The statement about not being able to get to work is bollox. You could
>even easily cycle that far
>if you don't have a driving licence.
What, and get knocked down by some idiot motorist.
Don't be bloody stupid. The only practical way for me to get to work,
day in, day out, is by train.
James Farrar
<rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:33:07 +0100, James Farrar <fly...@redhotant.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3937b714...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>, Rupert
>><rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes
>>>On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:01 +0100, "Robin Payne" <rc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> |Sorry, I shouldn't be feeding the trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you no sense of irony, man?
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that early in the morning, I don't.
>>>
>>>So that's why your shirts are so creased =P
>>
>>*slap*
>
>Oh come on, it wasn't that bad...
Oh, yes it was.
--
James Farrar <fly...@redhotant.co.uk>
James Farrar
<car...@bowmanc.freeserve.noIdontwanttobuywhateveryoureselling.uk>
writes
>Prescott MUST be SHOT immediately!!
You know, I actually agree with this bit :)
--
James Farrar <fly...@redhotant.co.uk>
nik morgan
My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for many years
now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident. This
is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore your claim to be
unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
The Lewisham onwards part of your journey has only been line for a matter of
months either you are new to this job or you must have made different commuting
arrangements prior to the DLR opening.
NM
Grandpops [Ben C]
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote:
>My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for many years
>now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident.
He's lucky then. I had to cycle 7 miles five days a week for just over
a month last summer and I had too many close shaves for my liking,
mostly involving car drivers pulling out of junctions/their driveways
in front of me with a few feet to spare; the most spectacular
involving a maroon Ford Orion. It came straight out of the housing
estate into the road without the driver even stopping to look,
presuming the road was empty I guess - straight into my path. I was no
more than 11 yards away doing 20mph - lets just say I was glad I had
new brakes and was able to steer round him. Ok, that's only my
experience but I'm sure other cyclists will tell a few tales.
If that's in the relatively uncluttered regions of East Anglia, wonder
what its like in London.
>This is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore >your claim to be
>unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
John could get to work by car, the amount of time it would take to
drive through London is another thing. Nobody wants to get out of bed
an hour earlier than usual to get to work at the usual time. In which
case the train is the most convenient way of travelling. Horses for
courses, was the phrase used a few days ago, and it seems the most
appropriate.
Regards,
BJC
---------------------------------
http://members.tripod.co.uk/avocet89/index.htm
AOL Instant Messenger: ben2382
-----------------------------------
Reply-to address: Spamtrapped. Exterminate the 66s to respond!
nik morgan
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:03:29 +0200, nik morgan
> <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> >My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for many years
> >now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident.
>
> He's lucky then. I had to cycle 7 miles five days a week for just over
> a month last summer and I had too many close shaves for my liking,
> mostly involving car drivers pulling out of junctions/their driveways
> in front of me with a few feet to spare; the most spectacular
> involving a maroon Ford Orion. It came straight out of the housing
> estate into the road without the driver even stopping to look,
> presuming the road was empty I guess - straight into my path. I was no
> more than 11 yards away doing 20mph - lets just say I was glad I had
> new brakes and was able to steer round him. Ok, that's only my
> experience but I'm sure other cyclists will tell a few tales.
>
> If that's in the relatively uncluttered regions of East Anglia, wonder
> what its like in London.
So what I said you have born out to be true, you also commuted by other means than train
and managed to do this without injury.
>
>
> >This is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore >your claim to be
> >unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
>
> John could get to work by car, the amount of time it would take to
> drive through London is another thing. Nobody wants to get out of bed
> an hour earlier than usual to get to work at the usual time. In which
> case the train is the most convenient way of travelling. Horses for
> courses, was the phrase used a few days ago, and it seems the most
> appropriate.
Having lived a long time in that part of London I do not accept that one would have to
get out of bed any earlier to complete this journey from door to door.
Grandpops [Ben C]
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote:
>> He's lucky then. I had to cycle 7 miles five days a week for just over
>> a month last summer and I had too many close shaves for my liking,
>> mostly involving car drivers pulling out of junctions/their driveways
>> in front of me with a few feet to spare; the most spectacular
>> involving a maroon Ford Orion. It came straight out of the housing
>> estate into the road without the driver even stopping to look,
>> presuming the road was empty I guess - straight into my path. I was no
>> more than 11 yards away doing 20mph - lets just say I was glad I had
>> new brakes and was able to steer round him. Ok, that's only my
>> experience but I'm sure other cyclists will tell a few tales.
>>
>> If that's in the relatively uncluttered regions of East Anglia, wonder
>> what its like in London.
>
>So what I said you have born out to be true, you also commuted by other means than train
>and managed to do this without injury.
That much is true, but what I noted was the amount of times high-risk
situations arose. Had I been cycling for more than a month there may
well have been problems [having seen the results of two friends being
knocked from their bikes and moped successors over the past year on a
journey of similar length]
BTW, commuting by train is not practical for me, the nearest station
being 8 miles in the opposite direction to my destination and the
railway line heading south instead of east. The bus is my usual method
- not as I would like it but its what I have to make do with,
reasonably accident free on its route of lightly used roads.
>> >This is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore >your claim to be
>> >unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
>>
>> John could get to work by car, the amount of time it would take to
>> drive through London is another thing. Nobody wants to get out of bed
>> an hour earlier than usual to get to work at the usual time. In which
>> case the train is the most convenient way of travelling. Horses for
>> courses, was the phrase used a few days ago, and it seems the most
>> appropriate.
>
>Having lived a long time in that part of London I do not accept that one would have to
>get out of bed any earlier to complete this journey from door to door.
I've just seen John's posting which tells of longer journey times with
cars. He should know, he lives there at the moment. If he finds it
more practical to use the train and join the commuters instead of
battling with others through the busy streets, what's the problem?
The train is there, if it offers shorter journey times - why not use
it. Horses for courses, as I stated before.
Ebenezer Scrooge
|> |This won't eliminate attacks, but will certainly reduce them.
|>
|> In the same way that having Bill-The-Security-Guard reduces
|> shoplifting?
|>
|> It might be nice to *think* that a uniformed presence will stop them,
|> but it won't.
|
|I totally disagree, having seen how it works elsewhere particularly abroad.
Sorry, but "abroad" isn't here. IMX people abroad (by which I mean
mainland Europe as I have no experience elsewhere) have a damn sight
more respect for a uniform than in this country.
|Having a uniformed presence makes people feel more comfortable, and hence
|more people travel, then the situation is self-policing.
'Fraid not. From my own work experience, assaults to passengers can
and have occurred on well loaded trains. If they can move, an incident
can occur.
|Also from my own work. Attacks on public and staff have occured at quiet
|times not when we are busy and introducing a security guard on Saturdays
|(when 99% of attacks take place) did reduce it but not totally eliminate it.
Which just goes to show that a solution for one industry is not
necessarily a solution for another industry.
[snip]
|I appreciate that a guard has himself to protect, but he should have the
|means to summon assistance readily to protect himself and passengers.
Time to get rid of BTP then, and enhance the staffing levels of the
local forces.
|As a regular visitor to Ireland, I have noticed that the sort of behaviour
|we see on trains is not tolerated on the ship.
Nor is it on airlines - but I can tell you from personal experience
that the sort of behaviour that on a plane would get you 6 months in
one of Her Majesties Finest Hotels wouldn't even get you arrested on
the railway.
|I know some rail staff who feel strongly on this issue.
Yeah - like me. The answer is that railways are viewed as somehow
unimportant compared to airlines.
anybody
> "Grandpops [Ben C]" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:03:29 +0200, nik morgan
> > <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for
many years
> > >now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic
accident.
> >
> > a month last summer and I had too many close shaves for my liking,
> > mostly involving car drivers pulling out of junctions/their driveways
> > in front of me with a few feet to spare; the most spectacular
> > involving a maroon Ford Orion. It came straight out of the housing
> > estate into the road without the driver even stopping to look,
> > presuming the road was empty I guess - straight into my path. I was no
> > more than 11 yards away doing 20mph - lets just say I was glad I had
> > new brakes and was able to steer round him. Ok, that's only my
> > experience but I'm sure other cyclists will tell a few tales.
> >
> > If that's in the relatively uncluttered regions of East Anglia, wonder
> > what its like in London.
>
> So what I said you have born out to be true, you also commuted by other
means than train
> and managed to do this without injury.
The stress and shock of the near misses especially the cumilative effect may
well result in psychiatiric trauma which is classed as an injury.
Rupert
wrote:
>"Grandpops [Ben C]" wrote:
>
>> snipped for brevity only
>>
>> The train is there, if it offers shorter journey times - why not use
>> it. Horses for courses, as I stated before.
>>
>> Regards,
>> BJC
>> ---------------------------------
>> http://members.tripod.co.uk/avocet89/index.htm
>> AOL Instant Messenger: ben2382
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>> Reply-to address: Spamtrapped. Exterminate the 66s to respond!
>
>I don't disagree with you; what I did disagree with was the way it was put over, that
>there is no alternative other than train, a fact which I know is untrue.
>If he wants to satisfy his masochistic tendencies by catching the train good luck to him.
And good luck to you in this ng if you continue not to snip .sigs... (and I
happen to know they're quite fussy about this in uk.t as well)
Taz
Stay at home instead!
Taz
nik morgan
> snipped for brevity only
>
> The train is there, if it offers shorter journey times - why not use
> it. Horses for courses, as I stated before.
>
> Regards,
> BJC
> ---------------------------------
> http://members.tripod.co.uk/avocet89/index.htm
> AOL Instant Messenger: ben2382
>
> -----------------------------------
> Reply-to address: Spamtrapped. Exterminate the 66s to respond!
I don't disagree with you; what I did disagree with was the way it was put over, that
there is no alternative other than train, a fact which I know is untrue.
If he wants to satisfy his masochistic tendencies by catching the train good luck to him.
NM
Justa Lurker
<car...@bowmanc.freeserve.noIdontwanttobuywhateveryoureselling.uk>
wrote in uk.transport.london:
| I saw one of these trains stop at a station and THE DOORS OPENED!!! People
| (some of them women and children) could have fallen out onto the platform
| (which was made out of CONCRETE) and BEEN KILLED!! Other people were able to
| just, well, GET ON to this obviously DANGEROUS train!!!! If another train
| ran into the same platform at the same time (which it didn't, but it could
| have done, maybe, perhaps) it might have CONFUSED the passengers!!!!!!
Not only that, but once the doors closed the train took off at an
incredible speed SEPARATING THOSE ON BOARD FROM THEIR HOMES and taking
them into the city where they had to rely on PUBLIC TRANSPORT! These
poor VICTIMS OF THE RAILWAY could not return to their homes FOR
SEVERAL HOURS --- IF AT ALL --- their return train could SKIP THE
STOP or at minimum bring them back ABANDONED on a DIFFERENT PLATFORM.
Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
JL
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>John Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Yn erthygl <393905C1...@direct.a2000.nl>, sgrifenodd nik morgan
>> <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>> >Michael Rodgers wrote:
>> >
>now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident.
>is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore your claim to be
>unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
Well, normally my journey by train, including changing, takes 45
minutes. How long will it take by bicycle? (I'm not going to work that
out because I'm not really interested.)
I've done my time on a push-bike, too. About 25 years ago, I used to go
from Brockley to London Bridge, every day in all weathers. Most car-
drivers are considerate, but there are enough idiots around that I am
never going to do that sort of thing again.
I'm not unable to get to work without a train. When strikes occur, I
have to make alternative arrangements. It's just that I have no
intention of going any other way on a daily basis. End of argument.
>
>The Lewisham onwards part of your journey has only been line for a matter of
>months either you are new to this job or you must have made different commuting
>arrangements prior to the DLR opening.
You're right. Prior to the DLR Lewisham Extension opening, I took the
train to London Bridge and went on the Jubilee Line extension. Prior to
London Bridge station on the JLE opening I went to Waterloo East, and
walked to Waterloo on the JLE. Prior to the JLE opening I went to London
Bridge, walked across the bridge to Monument Station and got the DLR
from there (i.e Bank). The DLR has been open since before I got my
present job. The journey used to take between an hour and an hour and a
quarter.
In my previous job I drove to and from work every day, 42 miles each
way, more than half of it on the M25. After that experience, I do not
want to have to drive (car, bicycle, etc.) or use the roads to get to
work ever again.
John Sullivan
[Ben C] <grand...@lycosmail.com>
>On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:03:29 +0200, nik morgan
><nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>>My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for many years
>>now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident.
>
>a month last summer and I had too many close shaves for my liking,
>mostly involving car drivers pulling out of junctions/their driveways
>in front of me with a few feet to spare; the most spectacular
>involving a maroon Ford Orion. It came straight out of the housing
>estate into the road without the driver even stopping to look,
>presuming the road was empty I guess - straight into my path. I was no
>more than 11 yards away doing 20mph - lets just say I was glad I had
>new brakes and was able to steer round him. Ok, that's only my
>experience but I'm sure other cyclists will tell a few tales.
>
>If that's in the relatively uncluttered regions of East Anglia, wonder
>what its like in London.
>
>to be
>>unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
>
Yes, I could. But then when I do, where can I park it? Who's going to
pay for the car-park season ticket (about GBP 1000 a year IIRC)? Why
should I buy a second car (my wife uses our existing car)?
> the amount of time it would take to
>drive through London is another thing. Nobody wants to get out of bed
>an hour earlier than usual to get to work at the usual time. In which
>case the train is the most convenient way of travelling. Horses for
>courses, was the phrase used a few days ago, and it seems the most
>appropriate.
Quite. I agree.
>
>Regards,
>BJC
>
>---------------------------------
>http://members.tripod.co.uk/avocet89/index.htm
>AOL Instant Messenger: ben2382
>
>-----------------------------------
>Reply-to address: Spamtrapped. Exterminate the 66s to respond!
--
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>
>Having lived a long time in that part of London I do not accept that one would
>have to
>get out of bed any earlier to complete this journey from door to door.
I thought we were talking about me? As I said, I work at Canary Wharf.
If you've lived a long time in that part of London you'll know
1. New office blocks are still being built. It is estimated that the
number of people working there will double over the next few years. The
number of people working there now is vastly greater than it was five
years ago. Traffic will get worse, and there will still be very
restricted parking, because you can't fit a quart into a pint pot.
2. It's all very well talking about getting to work in the morning,
but what about going home? I have had to take taxis home occasionally
(when carrying lots of heavy computer equipment that there's no way you
can get onto the train) and sometimes it takes 30 minutes to get from
the office just to the northern portal of the Blackwall tunnel, a
distance of no more than a couple of miles. This is because the roads
you have to use are completely jammed with far too much traffic. The
taxi fare, BTW, is about GBP 30, and I've even had to pay GBP 40 when
the jams have been too bad (all this is reimbursed on expenses, I hasten
to add).
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>"Grandpops [Ben C]" wrote:
>
>> snipped for brevity only
>>
>> The train is there, if it offers shorter journey times - why not use
>> it. Horses for courses, as I stated before.
>>
>> BJC
>> ---------------------------------
>> http://members.tripod.co.uk/avocet89/index.htm
>> AOL Instant Messenger: ben2382
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>> Reply-to address: Spamtrapped. Exterminate the 66s to respond!
>
>over, that
>there is no alternative other than train, a fact which I know is untrue.
>If he wants to satisfy his masochistic tendencies by catching the train good
>luck to him.
I don't understand this. What masochistic tendencies?
The 06:30 and 06:51 trains are lightly loaded, so I easily get a seat in
the second coach, if I get the 07:24 I usually go for the fourth coach,
where I easily get a seat. The DLR is no problem. The only trouble is on
the way home, when the previous train gets cancelled and its sardine
time for a couple of stops until the train clears out at Catford Bridge.
Since the journey time from New Beckenham to Lewisham is 10 minutes, I
don't see any problems with rail travel.
>NM
Robin Payne
> > train, travelling at 125MPH, passed within a FEW FEET of another train
> > travelling at the same speed. In this case, those passengers were very
> > fortunate that the trains were travelling on different tracks, but this
> > might not have been the case!
> >
> > This is DANGEROUS, the government must DO SOMETHING about it. This
> > HORRIFIC state of affairs MUST NOT be allowed to continue.
> >
> > In future, all railway lines should be AT LEAST 200m from any other line
> > to ensure that an accident could not ensue from a near-miss like this.
>
> I saw one of these trains stop at a station and THE DOORS OPENED!!! People
> (some of them women and children) could have fallen out onto the platform
> (which was made out of CONCRETE) and BEEN KILLED!! Other people were able
to
> just, well, GET ON to this obviously DANGEROUS train!!!! If another train
> ran into the same platform at the same time (which it didn't, but it could
> have done, maybe, perhaps) it might have CONFUSED the passengers!!!!!!
> Prescott MUST be SHOT immediately!!
>
onto this charriot of death, to discovere there are *two* to choose from,
one each side. How is the poor victim of this horror of our society to
decide which to board. Often they are going to entirely different places!
Robin
Rupert
>It was Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:14:56 +0100, and "Carl Bowman"
><car...@bowmanc.freeserve.noIdontwanttobuywhateveryoureselling.uk>
>wrote in uk.transport.london:
>| I saw one of these trains stop at a station and THE DOORS OPENED!!! People
>| (some of them women and children) could have fallen out onto the platform
>| (which was made out of CONCRETE) and BEEN KILLED!! Other people were able to
>| just, well, GET ON to this obviously DANGEROUS train!!!! If another train
>| ran into the same platform at the same time (which it didn't, but it could
>| have done, maybe, perhaps) it might have CONFUSED the passengers!!!!!!
>| Prescott MUST be SHOT immediately!!
>
>Not only that, but once the doors closed the train took off at an
>incredible speed SEPARATING THOSE ON BOARD FROM THEIR HOMES and taking
>them into the city where they had to rely on PUBLIC TRANSPORT! These
>poor VICTIMS OF THE RAILWAY could not return to their homes FOR
>SEVERAL HOURS --- IF AT ALL --- their return train could SKIP THE
>STOP or at minimum bring them back ABANDONED on a DIFFERENT PLATFORM.
>
>Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
>these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
Reminds me of a joke. How many social workers does it take to change a
lightbulb?
nik morgan
> Yn erthygl <3939648F...@direct.a2000.nl>, sgrifenodd nik morgan
> <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
> >John Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> Yn erthygl <393905C1...@direct.a2000.nl>, sgrifenodd nik morgan
> >> <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
> >> >Michael Rodgers wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "nik morgan" <nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3938CF01...@direct.a2000.nl...
> >> >> > > If I don't use the train, I can't get to work. I am not going to give
> >up
> >> >> > > a day's work just because some f*cking idiot with sh*t for brains has
> >> >> > > got some bee in her bonnet about one of the safest and quickest modes
> >of
> >> >> > > transport in the UK.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Makes you wonder what this woman has to do all day, if she comes up
> >with
> >> >> > > stupid ideas like this.
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > John Sullivan
> >> >> > > -------------
> >> >> > > Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
> >> >> > > remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Go by car or preferably Motorcycle
> >> >>
> >> >> Which, by staggering coincidence, are significantly more dangerous forms of
> >> >> transport than rail.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Michael Rodgers, Plymouth UK
> >> >> http://www.network-southeast.co.uk - The NSE Page
> >> >> http://www.network-southeast.co.uk/games - Free, fun, trivia!
> >> >> Spamtrapped: Remove INTERCITY to reply
> >> >
> >> >So what, They are also very practical ways of getting from/to the points you
> >> >mention. The statement about not being able to get to work is bollox. You
> >could
> >> >even easily cycle that far
> >> >if you don't have a driving licence.
> >>
> >> What, and get knocked down by some idiot motorist.
> >>
> >> Don't be bloody stupid. The only practical way for me to get to work,
> >> day in, day out, is by train.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >NM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Sullivan
> >> -------------
> >> Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
> >> remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
> >
> >My mate cycles or motorcycles, as the whim takes him, every day, for many years
> >now, from Thamesmead to Euston, so far he is uninjured by traffic accident.
> >This
> >is approx. twice the distance you are talking about therefore your claim to be
> >unable to get to work without a train is still bollox.
>
> >NM
> >
> >
>
> --
> John Sullivan
> -------------
> Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
> remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
I must be the exact opposite of you transport wise. I will never get a British train
anywhere unless there is absolutely no alternative (this also to a lesser extent,
applies to buses) as experience has shown me that it is too unreliable, The last
fiasco at Luton airport courtesy of Thameslink springs to mind.
I could not grasp how it was impossible for you to get to work without the train as
from my point of view that would not have been a considered option. If I had to put
up with the lack of service that rail commuters put up with regularly then I would
change my job or location to one that would avoid that type of travel, life is too
short to permanently put up with that crap.
When I left SE London the DLR extension was under construction I have never seen it
running, is it well used/full?
I included the cycle bit because I did not assume automatically that you had a
driving licence I agree with you about cycling in the UK but it is an alternative I
would use myself for commuting if I had to, rather than rely on a train.
In spite of my deep dislike of the mess the British railway system is in I actually
like trains and trams, I'm investigating a holiday in the Canadian Rockies by rail
at the moment and I don't know if you have this in the UK, there is a late night TV
station here that shows various railway journeys world-wide, shown in real time from
the drivers cab/footplate with actual sound not music background.
Happy commuting
NM
John Sullivan
<nik.m...@direct.a2000.nl>
>If I had to put
>up with the lack of service that rail commuters put up with regularly then I
>would
>change my job or location to one that would avoid that type of travel, life is
>too
>short to permanently put up with that crap.
Not an option.
Jobs like mine are not available outside of the financial district.
If I moved close to work I would have to spend the full receipts I would
get for selling my 5-bedroom semi on a 1-bedroom flat. Anyhow, I want to
live in south-east London, I have connections (family, club, friends,
etc.) here.
As far as I am concerned, my journey to work is not (except on odd
occasions that only happen rarely) crap. Every other alternative that
has been suggested is, IMNSHO, crap.
Maybe this just goes to show that in spite of what people have been led
to believe about commuting by rail, the situation in south-east London
(and on the Hayes line in particular) is not as bad as people think.
Neil Williams
> As far as I am concerned, my journey to work is not (except on odd
> occasions that only happen rarely) crap. Every other alternative that
> has been suggested is, IMNSHO, crap.
Very similar to my experience going from Aughton Park to Manchester
daily. While the train was late very frequently, I have done the same
journey by road a few times in the peak, and it has taken upwards of
2-2.5 hours, compared with about an hour normally by road or 1.5hrs
or so by rail. Bar a private helicopter, had no halls of residence
been available at the time the train *was* the best option.
Fortunately, moving to Manchester was an option for me, as spaces in
halls aren't that difficult to arrange...
Neil
phil wood
Justa Lurker </dev/null@.com> wrote in message
news:393a1865...@news.bnin.net...
> It was Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:14:56 +0100, and "Carl Bowman"
> <car...@bowmanc.freeserve.noIdontwanttobuywhateveryoureselling.uk>
> wrote in uk.transport.london:
> | I saw one of these trains stop at a station and THE DOORS OPENED!!!
People
> | (some of them women and children) could have fallen out onto the
platform
> | (which was made out of CONCRETE) and BEEN KILLED!! Other people were
able to
> | just, well, GET ON to this obviously DANGEROUS train!!!! If another
train
> | ran into the same platform at the same time (which it didn't, but it
could
> | have done, maybe, perhaps) it might have CONFUSED the passengers!!!!!!
> | Prescott MUST be SHOT immediately!!
>
> Not only that, but once the doors closed the train took off at an
> incredible speed SEPARATING THOSE ON BOARD FROM THEIR HOMES and taking
> them into the city where they had to rely on PUBLIC TRANSPORT! These
> poor VICTIMS OF THE RAILWAY could not return to their homes FOR
> SEVERAL HOURS --- IF AT ALL --- their return train could SKIP THE
> STOP or at minimum bring them back ABANDONED on a DIFFERENT PLATFORM.
>
> Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
> these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
What's more, if I'd decided to go out, as I sometimes do and if I'd decided
to travel on that line, as I sometimes do, I might have been on that train
<shudder>
I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.
I'm taking a couple of days off work to recover and from now on I shall
uni-cycle to my destination rather than risk the dangers of the so-called
railway.
Phil Wood
with thanks to a certain tabloid columnist who has written similar bilge in
the past
David Hansen
<jack.howard@[127.0.0.1]> wrote this:-
>Sorry Alan, I know you were on the HST, but this media-driven obsession
>with "total safety at all and any cost" has GOT to be stopped.
I've read the leaflet and Alan's page. Here are some comments.
[The leaflet]
>Eight months have gone by and do you think anything
>constructive has been done to make sure this never happens again?
Two points. Firstly, "making sure that this never happens again" is an
aspiration only for lawyers, liars and the uninformed. There are only
two certain things in this world, neither of which is to do with
trains. Anyone who claims that they are going to make sure that
something never happens again is misinformed or lying. It's that
simple. This isn't a politically correct thing to say or good spin,
which is why the railways aren't saying it, but it is a fact.
What it is possible is to reduce the chances of something happening
again. There are many ways of doing this, but they will never reduce
the chances of this happening again to zero. This has been
demonstrated very well in countries equipped with the sort of ATP
systems people are calling for.
>Another crash could happen at any time.
Correct, that's life. Nobody has yet invented a perfectly safe way of
moving around the countryside, even walking in open countryside has
its dangers. Why should trains be expected to be risk free. However,
getting to the station remains more dangerous than being on the train.
{Alan's page]
>Accident at Watford, 1996
>It was found that the distance from the signal to the junction, the overlap, >was less than required by the guidelines.
Incorrect. Had the speed limit been as it was before than this claim
would have been correct. Because it was not possible to provide a
suitable overlap the speed limit was reduced to that at which a
suitable overlap was provided.
>So rail in the UK is far safer than other forms of surface transport
The air figures you quote show the danger of using only one set of
figures to look at a problem. Few people travel by air to do the
shopping for instance. Air travel consists of two short distance
relatively dangerous bits, interspersed with a long distance
relatively safe bit.
>Air travel is as safe as it is because government aviation authorities have >insisted that safety measures are implemented.
See above for the danger of figures. Ask about air traffic control,
rearward facing seats, smoke hoods and water mist systems before
praising government aviation authorities.
>Primary safety is concerned with the prevention of accidents.
We're talking about crashes, not accidents.
> Most recent accidents have been as a result
> of a train being driven past a signal at danger (SPAD).
Not really, though it is a problem. Vandalism, motorists, equipment
failure, staff and passengers are other factors in incidents.
>Train crashes involving Mark 1 coaching stock have been characterised by a >high amount of damage to the coaches being caused by them riding up and over >each other. The Clapham disaster in 1988 was one such crash where there were >a large number of deaths.
There were a number of deaths. Whether 35 deaths (out of at least 1300
people on the trains) is a large number or not is debatable. I would
say it's a remarkable tribute to the secondary safety of the Mark I
design.
Most of the coaches demonstrated remarkable strength in that crash.
There were at least 32 coaches involved, possibly 36 (I can't find a
figure for the number of coaches in the empty stock train). With the
exception of the first two coaches of the Poole train there was
remarkably little damage to coaches. These two coaches would have
behaved a bit better if they were more modern, but it is cruel to
pretend to the families of the victims that things would have been
much better with more modern rolling stock. No matter what the form of
construction (and no matter whether there is a locomotive leading) the
first coaches going into a narrow gap between a stationary train and
one going the other way will be badly damaged. This is simply a fact
of engineering and no amount of spin doctoring or wishful thinking can
change it.
>There are usually no emergency exits.
Totally incorrect. All railway coaches have emergency exits. This has
been outlined in the Ladbroke Grove evidence. The main emergency exits
are the doors (just like a building). There are other emergency exits
in the form of corridor connections and breakable windows.
>Mark 3 coaches are fitted with hammers to break windows
As are most trains, the exceptions are Mark I coaches (which have
extra doors instead) and some suburban trains in London where thieves
were stealing the hammers. Mark II and IV coaches have these hammers,
as do multiple units.
> but passengers have experienced difficulty in finding them
Some passengers have. Personally I have observed these hammers in
trains since the 1970s and tend to make a mental note of them when I
get on. Whether I could remember after a crash is debatable and I hope
will remain so. Whether it's possible to train all passengers in what
to do in an emergency is debatable. Certainly in the days when the UK
had a Civil Defence organisation most people weren't that interested
in training for emergencies.
>and have found them ineffective.
Yes and no. They have been used on a number of occasions, sometimes
without success, often with. See Cadder below.
>The doors do not automatically unlock in the event of an accident and they >are not always unlocked by drivers, guards or conductors (who may be >incapacitated by injury).
Often with good reason. For the first minutes the safest place to be
is usually inside the train. There would have been a huge outcry had
the passengers who jumped out of the train at Cadder in 1983 been hit
by a train on the running line onto which they jumped and then stood
for several minutes recovering. There could have been dozens of
deaths. By the way these passengers used the much maligned hammers to
break the windows and escape from coaches filling rapidly with smoke.
>If a train is not upright, it is difficult to open manual doors because of >their weight.
Yes, but then coaches on their side are rare. It's a question of how
far it is feasible to go given that 100% safety is not possible.
>Doors on Mark 3 coaches are also narrow
They are a lot wider than Mark I doors and somewhat wider than Mark II
doors.
>Difficulty in finding emergency equipment (tools, fire extinguishers, etc.). >Because they have in the past by vandals, emergency equipment often shut away >from view.
Fire extinguishers are provided at the ends of main line coaches. They
are easy to get at, held in by a strap. Vandals undo this strap and
throw them out of trains with opening windows, endangering staff
working on the line and members of the public/staff on stations, the
lineside and level crossings. Despite this they have not been put
behind break glass units. If the fire extinguishers were in the
passenger compartment then in a crash a broken strap would cause the
heavy fire extinguisher to shoot along the length of the coach,
injuring people. In the vestibule they can't fly that far. In a crash
the straps may break, they may also jam. I'm afraid nothing is
perfect.
In local trains the extinguishers are in the doorways, again
accessible and again in the position to cause least damage in a crash.
Other emergency equipment is situated in a cabinet, behind a break
glass unit. This is clearly marked as such and how to get in is also
clearly marked. To generalise signs throughout more modern trains say
something like "Emergency equipment is located in the direction
indicated", with an arrow. In older trains the signs say something
like "Emergency equipment is located in the guards van". The latter
is less desirable but in a non-fixed formation it's not clear what
more can be done. I have observed these signs and cabinets in
everything from the ancient class 117 trains that used to run here to
the latest class 170s.
There is never enough equipment in a serious crash, but it's always a
balance between conflicting priorities. The Ladbroke Grove evidence
has already highlighted this, at least to those with an open mind.
>Drivers are expected to "know the road". Before they can drive a train on a >particular line,
That's not a concern to me. I'm glad to know it.
>They are expected to know whereabouts they are on the line while driving and >remember where the signals and speed restrictions are. This is asking rather >a lot on complicated routes like the approaches to London termini.
It's asking that drivers are able to do their job. Usually they are,
but nobody's perfect. What do you suggest the railways do?
>Many shifts start in the early hours of the morning.
Shifts start at all times of the day. Railway staff generally prefer
such early turns.
>As an interim measure, signalling systems must be enhanced so that a SPAD >will cause all other train movements in the area to be stopped by setting >signals to red automatically.
So, a train driver passes a ground signal in a siding and stops a
metre beyond it. Meanwhile train drivers in the surrounding area (just
how big is this area, 5km, 10km?) are encountering danger signals.
This is something where some balance is needed. The bit of your site I
have snipped explains why.
>ATP MUST be fitted on all lines, and the trains using them, where train >speeds frequently exceed 75 mph or where there are heavy freight trains.
>This means on all lines except rural branch lines.
Who is going to pay for this? The two choices are the passenger or the
tax payer.
>TPWS must be fitted to the remainder.
So, the Oban line, which has a few trains a day, must be fitted with
TPWS. I think it would be closed instead and people put on the far
less safe A82. It is eminently sensible that TPWS is to be fitted to
Craigendoran Junction (at the Glasgow end of the Oban line) where
there was nearly a crash a few years ago, but I see no reason to fit
TPWS to say Taynuilt.
>There must be a re-design of these tanks to reduce the chance of diesel >escaping in a crash.
Fine, if there is much that is possible, but there are limits and no
amount of baffles and super duper materials would have prevented fuel
being atmomised from the tanks in the first coach of the local train
at Ladbroke Grove.
>Many injuries in a crash are caused by flying belongings - brief cases, >laptop computers, etc. Luggage racks above seats must be be modified so that >they restrain belongings stowed in them.
So, people should put laptops, briefcases, children's games, handbags
and so on in luggage racks.
>More lower level stowage should be provided.
Fewer seats per coach, longer/more trains to carry the same number of
passengers, more cost, even higher fares. A difficult equation.
>Emergency release instructions must be displayed more prominently.
More certainly needs to be done. The, "splash signs everywhere"
approach may satisfy lawyers, but is not necessarily the right one.
More research is needed and I think the most important people to
involve are psychologists. Personally I would have thought that the
existing signs would be enough for regular travellers, but this does
not seem to have been the case. Psychologists are needed to understand
why and what can be done. The Summerland fire is just one example of
the need to understand how people actually behave in emergencies and
there is much the railways can and do learn from other emergencies.
>Emergency exits. None are provided at present.
False.
>The hammers are not prominently displayed
They are well enough displayed for me to notice them. They were also
prominently enough displayed for London criminals to see and steal
them. See above for the need to understand people.
>In the slightly longer term, emergency exits must be provided (as they are on >buses and aircraft).
Perhaps you could give examples of the sort of thing you would like to
see. Then we can discuss the pros and cons of each.
>Passengers need guidance on safe evacuation. Guards must be re-instated on >driver-only trains to advise and help passengers.
They were withdrawn because the shareholders wanted to see economies
in the operation of local and freight trains. The shareholders were
the government, the same government that promised money would not
prevent the fitting of ATP to the railways. The privatised companies
have typically put more staff on passenger trains, though there are
exceptions. Personally I was against removal of guards, it hasn't been
as bad as I feared but I'm still glad the companies are slowly
reversing the trend.
>On-board catering staff should also be trained in safety duties (as with >flight attendants on aircraft).
They are trained in some safety duties, but not all. Flight attendants
on aircraft are not trained in the safety duties of pilots, are you
suggesting that they should be?
>Safety instruction sheets, or something similar, should be provided at every >seat, as they are on aircraft.
Every seat.
Would this be every seat first thing in the morning? If so then
passengers later in the day would not "benefit" from the sheets unless
they were left behind.
Would this be every seat every time the train sets off from a
terminus? If so then station times would be extended and staff would
be needed to put them on the seats. Passengers who joined at
intermediate stations may not "benefit" from such sheets unless they
were left behind.
Would this be every seat at every station? The problems in this case
are even more extreme.
All in all one of the least sensible "safety" ideas I have heard in a
long time in my view. It may satisfy lawyers, but that's about it.
What is far more sensible is to revisit signs.
David Hansen | david...@NO.spidacom.co.SPAMuk | PGP email preferred
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number 5432274D
Due to the amount of spam now killing e-mail I have modified my address
to reply remove SEND NO SPAM.
Justa Lurker
(Rupert) wrote in uk.transport.london:
| >Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
| >these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
|
| lightbulb?
Give them 200,000 pounds and they'll study the situation?
JL
nik morgan
We'll have to take that to committee before we can give a decision and of
course that will have to take place after the details have been published
and interested parties have had time to comment then after a pre committee
review a decision could be arrived at but of course that will not take
effect until after any appeal process has been exhausted. all this of
course only applies if we can get initial funding for this research.
Rupert
>It was Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:15:27 GMT, and rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk
>(Rupert) wrote in uk.transport.london:
>| >Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
>| >these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
>|
>| Reminds me of a joke. How many social workers does it take to change a
>| lightbulb?
>
>Give them 200,000 pounds and they'll study the situation?
Nearly. The answer I was thinking of was 'One, but the lightbulb has to
*want* to change first...'
Peter Smithson
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Difficulty in finding emergency equipment (tools, fire extinguishers, etc.). >Because they have in the past by vandals, emergency equipment often shut away >from view.
>
>Fire extinguishers are provided at the ends of main line coaches. They
>are easy to get at, held in by a strap. Vandals undo this strap and
<snip>
Funny how people are worried about fire extinguishers on trains yet
more people die in their homes each year than on trains. Not sure how
many are due to fire but I imagine quite a few.
The number of deaths per million miles travelled must be astronomical.
:-)
I live in a canal boat and have to have a certain number of fire
extinguishers and a fire blanket in the kitchen in order to be allowed
to live on the canal. There are all sorts of other saftey aspects in
the rules too.
It's amazing that people can get so worked up about train saftey but I
doubt that they have independent tests of their wiring, gas
appliances, ventilation etc. every 3 years in their own homes where
they spend a lot of time. Some of it while they are asleep and
therefore unable to respond quickly.
I'd love for an expert to go around the chaps house who wrote all that
stuff about train safety not being good and rip it apart!
--
http://bigfoot.com/~wadmag
Peter Smithson
>>Jobs like mine are not available outside of the financial district.
>
>Quite. I have been trying to change jobs for the whole of the 6 years I
>have been commuting between Bedford and the City. I nearly always get
>offered jobs nearby when I apply for them, but with a 50% pay cut. I'd
>be happy to take a 10-15% cut to get my life back, but 50%? No way.
If you count the time spent commuting , wouldn't you be working a 7
day week? (assuming it's around 3 extra hours a day). Do you include
that in your figures?
I suppose it could be quite relaxing having a read of a book on the
way to and from work though.
--
http://bigfoot.com/~wadmag
Franc
> (Rupert) wrote in uk.transport.london:
> | >Oh the sheer HORROR of the situation! Something MUST be done about
> | >these MONSTERS ON RAIL!
> |
> | Reminds me of a joke. How many social workers does it take to change a
> | lightbulb?
None: because it's the fault of Society that the lightbulb cannot work.
F.
John Sullivan
<PSmi...@bigfoot.com>
Actually, I am only "on" the train for an hour a day. I am currently
studying for a MSc in what is laughingly called my spare time, and I can
only get serious reading done on the DLR bit of the journey, because the
other bit is so short.
Sam Holloway
>Reminds me of a joke. How many social workers does it take to change a
>lightbulb?
Shouldn't this be cross-posted to alt.rec.lightbulb? :-)))
-----------------------
Sam Holloway
s...@samholloway.co.uk
www.samholloway.co.uk
-----------------------
phil wood
> Justa Lurker wrote:
>
> > It was Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:15:27 GMT, and rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk
> > (Rupert) wrote in uk.transport.london:
> > | lightbulb?
> >
> >
>
> We'll have to take that to committee before we can give a decision and of
> course that will have to take place after the details have been published
> and interested parties have had time to comment then after a pre committee
> review a decision could be arrived at but of course that will not take
> effect until after any appeal process has been exhausted. all this of
> course only applies if we can get initial funding for this research.
>
Reminds me of a social worker I once met who told me of a meeting he had to
attend where several senior staff discussed how to allocate seven pounds
fifty! (True story)
Cheers,
Phil Wood
Rupert
>On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:15:27 GMT, rup...@sel.cam.ac.uk (Rupert) wrote:
>>Reminds me of a joke. How many social workers does it take to change a
>>lightbulb?
>
>Shouldn't this be cross-posted to alt.rec.lightbulb? :-)))
Or alt.criticism.social-workers...
LM Collis/BH Williams
engineering) using a Psion whilst commuting Sandling -Charing Cross- at
least when you do something like that, you feel you're using the time
productively.
Brian
"John Sullivan" <jo...@y.ddraig.goch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cuwFJoBD...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
Lew 1
(replace the fish with net)> stood up on a Central Line train and
shouted:
>> - but don't drive to work and make road
>
>
>Stay at home instead!
But what about the risk of falling down the stairs?
*******************************************************
www.lewstube.co.uk
A fun site about the London Underground for
commuters, tourists and enthusiasts!
*******************************************************
Remove "REMOVETHIS" from email address to reply
David Hansen
<philsticky...@btinternet.com> wrote this:-
>What's more, if I'd decided to go out, as I sometimes do and if I'd decided
>to travel on that line, as I sometimes do, I might have been on that train
Yes, it's truly amazing that millions of people use the train to get
into London every day and they do so safely. THE RAILWAYS MUST BE
HIDING SOMETHING.
Sam Wilson
>to travel on that line, as I sometimes do, I might have been on that train
>I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.
> I'm taking a couple of days off work to recover and from now on I shall
>uni-cycle to my destination rather than risk the dangers of the so-called
>railway.
You will of course use your unicycle on the Motorway, since research shows
that travelling on Motorways is safer than travelling on other roads.
--
Sam Wilson
Network Services Division, Computing Services
The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Mike Warren
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:02:21 +0100 someone who may be "phil wood"
> <philsticky...@btinternet.com> wrote this:-
>
> >What's more, if I'd decided to go out, as I sometimes do and if I'd decided
> >to travel on that line, as I sometimes do, I might have been on that train
>
> Yes, it's truly amazing that millions of people use the train to get
> into London every day and they do so safely. THE RAILWAYS MUST BE
> HIDING SOMETHING.
>
Yeah..so what if a very small percentage get killed or injured....I dunno..these
people moaning about poor old railtrack. Dont they realise that the shareholders
are of paramount importance, and as long as only a few passengers get killed
then noones really that bothered.
Mike Warren.