nigelward

I'm not that broad and the seats still aren't wide enough.

Is this still the case? The last I heard the power infrastructure of the rail network may not be able to cope with the additional power requirements of the newer rolling stock.

If the new rolling stock Cr@p West Trains have been running are anything to go by
- the interior trim will last five minutes
- hopefully the air-con will continue to work because no windows open
- hopefully they can make the new stock as reliable as the old stock
- while the seats have got narrower the new stock does not appear to have anymore seats on it than the old!!!! so no new capacity is actually being created.

Worst still, like so many major commuter lines, more and more houses are being developed along it so passenger numbers are going to be increase quicker than any additional capacity will be added.

Editted to say: Oops gone slightly off topic.


[Edited by nigelward - 11/10/2002 11:42:59 AM]

Ratman

How can the rail companies justify that safety is their number one priority when they don't even install such a simple and life-saving safety device?

Ratman
MY98 Wagon

MarkO

Fitting seat-belts would be a bit pointless when a) half the passengers wouldn't do them up, and b) half of the passengers are standing, so wouldn't have a seat (let alone a belt)....

Ratman

Aha MarkO, but the 2nd reason you give would perhaps encourage train companies to run the correct number of trains/carriages/seats at the correct times.

As for the first reason, the Darwin Awards spring to mind.

Ratman
MY98 Wagon

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

Pretty obvious I would have thought, they dont go fast enough to warrant installing them Anyways theres not usually enough seats to go around, most ppl are left standing

what would scooby do

Actually, the amount of deaths in UK train crashes is extremely low when compared with cars so it would be a waste of money

Avril

Seat belts would be burnt/cut/shredded/nicked within an hour of being fitted. Besides, there's so much chewing gum on the seats and on the floor that THAT should stop you being thrown anywhere in itself.

MarkO

That implies that all passengers should be seated which, in a lot of cases, simply isn't practical or economically viable.

Besides, most people who die in train crashes don't do so as a result of a lack of seatbelts. It's usually cos the carriages are crushed or set on fire.

Nigel H

Ah ha. I can speak with some authority here, 'cos train safety is what I do for a living.

Simple answer is that they're not cost effective. There's a legal requirement to evaluate any solution to see if it is worthwhile. It's called the ALARP principle (As Low As Reasonably Practical). If you can demonstrate that the cost of fitting seatbelts would be more than the cost of killing people then you don't have to do it.

How do you know how much it cost to kill people? Easy the government tells us, at the moment its about £3M per life IIRC. Some people are uneasy with this concept, but it's a very good way of testing if things are worth doing (it's also used in road design schemes BTW) and its the law.

TopBanana

I for one always try to sit facing away from the direction of travel in case of a crash

DavidRB

Given the state of some of our ancient rolling stock, you'd probably find that in a crash, the passengers would be strapped in nice & safely, but the seats would be torn from their mountings!

Ratman

Authoritative and interesting response from Nigel H there.

I wonder at what point the PR effect of killing your customers (didn't they used to be passengers?) is taken into consideration?

And I'd have thought that, for those companies buying new rolling stock, stipulating seatbelts being fitted would not add that much to the purchase price? Although, I suppose, there'll be on-going maintenance costs, too.

Also, do the new carriages have luggage stowage more safely under the seats, rather than flying about above head height, I wonder.

Ratman
MY98 Wagon

Clarebabes

What's a "train"?

barge

why dont the just rip all the seats out, then they could up the price of tickets saying they have made the trains roomier & at the same time ram more people on to them.

on this subjust why can I buy a standing only ticket ?

DavidRB

I remember a lecture (going back a bit ) on the cost of rail safety and it's the same as Nigel H describes. The figures have changed, but the overall distribution is probably the same:

Someone who is unconnected with the railway (e.g. someone near to a railway but not on Network Rail property) is worth £2m.
A passenger is worth £1m because by buying a ticket, they have accepted some of the risks of travelling.
An employee is worth £0.5m because they are further bought into the risk.
A vandal is worth £0.25m.

When safety budgets are worked out, the amount spent is based on the numbers of each type of person that the expenditure can be expected to protect. It's not PR, it's just about prioritising limited funds. It's the same on the roads with barriers, signs, etc..

When Prescott goes around saying he'll spend whatever is necessary to save lives on the railways, he's talking out of his ****. The money must be spent where it is most effective.


Stipulating seatbelts is not that straightforward because you can't just bolt them anywhere, you do have to ensure that the mounting points are strong enough. It might require a major redesign.

astraboy

Well, I have to take the train 5 times a week and its hellish enough without some sanctamonius[sp] **** talking to me on his mic which is pitched up to the level of a sonic boom to tell me to doo my seatbelt up.
Whilst we're on the subject of trains, let me tell you how much I fookin hate em. Before I even get to the station i have a few moments in silent prayer in case I get caught in one of the freaquent and often fatal pileups. Lateness is endemic, as is the filthy state of the carriages. I have to battle to get a seat which I paid for EVERY FOOKIN MORNING, before having to endure some 20 stone heffer sitting next to me. After about an hour (it should take 45 mins) of rattley bad smelling torture the piece of **** on wheels which I'm travelling drags its sorry **** into waterloo. There I'm confronted by an array of what look like quatermass experiments, but are in fact ticket inspectors. well, I say ticket inspectors but really its a bunch of GNVQ dropouts and bogus asylum seekers in dayglo vests. Its been about two years since someone has asked for my ticket in an english accent. Or said please for that matter. anyway, I digress.
I'm waiting on the platform of waterloo east and onother piece of **** in wheels lumbers into the station after the customary 15 minute delay. I'm rammed onto the train by a stampede of suits. We're shoulder to shoulder and I feel like I should moo to make the feel of the carriage. A journey that takes 5 minutes takes 20, we spend more time stationary than moving. If you're lucky to be in summer, you can open the window the 5 mm the **** train designers allow you to to relieve the 120degree heat you're in. Finally you're at london bridge. you stampede with the rest of the suits into underground tunnels, all you want to do is get to work. But you have to be hearded through fookin ticket barriers operated by more chimpazees in peaked hats. finally you're shot of the whole sorry mess, you feel like you've done a days work before you've even arrived. And the best bit? you gotta do the whole fiasco again, just in reverse this time.
Trains, I fiikin hate em. I want to burn the entire "network" (theres a contradiction in terms) to the ground so no-one will have to take a train ever again.
And I have to pay £1559.00 a year for this privilige
I FUKIN HATE TRAINS!!!!
astraboy.

King RA

I used to work in waterloo and suffered an identical journey every day. I now work 5 miles from my house, to which I drive and it should be a 20 minute journey. Every day I suffer for 50 sodding minutes...stop....go....stop....go....stop....go. When I used the trains at least I didn't have to think and if I got a seat I could go to sleep. It could be worse astraboy.

Brendan Hughes

a/b, thanks, made me chuckle even though you were ranting!

Reminds me of a sketch written in a Spike Milligan book, can't remember which (Little Pot Boiler?) about trains in the future: How passengers would be pushed into carriages a la Tokyo with poles, doors with sharpened edges would close and snip off offending bags, clothing, fingers. Stale cigarette smoke would be pumped into carriages to cheer the passengers up. Etc.. anyone else see that?

jbryant

King RA - sounds like a recipe for cycling or even just walking to work? Walking 5 miles would not take much more than an hour. I don't know the state of the roads around your area or how much you can cycle 'off-road' (I don't mean pavements but towpaths, through parks, and the like could be quite pleasant).

Just a thought
Joolz

David Lock

Nigel H/DavidRB

So what's your take on the millions (billions?) being spent on rail track and signalling improvements to improve safety. I am not saying it shouldn't be spent or that it won't make things safer but I would hazard a guess that a lot of this is PR and in the cold light of day the same money spent on road safety would save more lives?? David

NotoriousREV

astraboy, move up north mate, you'll live longer by the sound of it.

Sith

IMO Seatbelts on trains are a bad idea. I like the ability to move on the seat without restriction (providing I get a seat, not offen) Plus the belts and buckles would all take up extra space.
I find the seats are not wide enough (I'm rather broard) the backs of the seats are not high enough and there is not enough padding.

I do the Waterloo trek Mon to Fri and hate it. I have had enough of the suits trying to push me so I push them back, and use my width to keep some space while boarding the train. The W & C line is the worst part of the journey.

CharlieWhiskey

In the next 2 years there will be no 'ancient rolling stock' left! Even the 25 year old stuff is designed to survive a crash. Modern designs have crumple zones and specially designed interiors to further improve safety in the event of a 'VERY RARE' accident.

Seatbelts are fitted to cars as they stop very quickly in an accident. A few hundred tons of train do not usually stop that quickly and you would need a full harness to cope with all the ways you could be thrown out of your seat. In very few fatal train crashes would seat belts have made much difference to the casualty figures.

Then there is the other point, passengers wouldn't use them!

Why on earth do people get so worked up about rail accidents? There are more people killed on the roads EVERY DAY than die on the railways in a year!

Hoppy

I love cars/driving. I hate travelling by train. At peak times, it's torture. But let's get some perspective on safety here. There are more than TEN PEOPLE KILLED EVERY DAY ON THE ROADS.

Richard.

CharlieWhiskey

Luckily I don't have to commute in the SouthEast! But seeing the state of some of the newer trains after being introduced down there I think Cattle Trucks would be more appropriate!

Yes some of the new stuff is crap as in many cases it is built down to a price (Particularly the Alstom or Adtranz stuff). Now Bombardier (French Canadian Train, Aircraft & Bobsliegh builder) has taken over Adtranz the newer stuff should be better. Seimens kit (Heathrow Express & the next Great Eastern & SWT stuff) is MUCH better!

Not sure on the power supply stuff, apart from we should never have had third rail in the first place! I will probably find out more as we have a potential contract for the new trains.

I guess I'm lucky, most of the test trains I work on only have us on board

Mark Miwurdz

Which is fine until the bloke sitting opposite you headbutts your face at 130MPH when the southbound 13:38 from Manchester Picadilly hits the northbound 12:02 from Euston somewhere around Milton Keynes.

Cheers
Kav

Nigel H

David,

Privatisation of the Railways has sent costs spiraling upwards. The number of consultants (me!) and lawyers is the problem. So projects like the West Coast have seen cost increase 5 to 10 fold since they started.

Any investment in the railways is good IMHO, I have to say that. There's much more scope to spend money on roads to improve safety though.

Re the comment about killing people and bad PR. No it's never good PR, but it's just a fact that the Government (who run the railways despite what you may think) only gives a certain budget to the railways and it needs to be spent wisely. ALARP is the way of doing this, and it works IMHO.

DavidRB

Personally, I'd like to see them spend it on covering the entire rail network in tarmac and painting some white lines down it. Of course, that might not be popular with everyone.

This is very true. I think it's probably because in a car accident, you are the driver, so you accept the risks much more easily than when you are a passenger in someone else's train.

If I get worked up about ancient rolling stock it's because I think that the country that invented the train should have a much better rail system than we do today. It's particularly frustrating that so much of the rolling stock is being built in other countries.