Should the railways be nationalised?
Poll: Should the railways be nationalised?
Total Members Polled: 471
Discussion
Du1point8 said:
legzr1 said:
Du1point8 said:
I think it should be nationalised and unionised, then we can expect more crap like this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
50% of all those eligible to vote voted yes for industrial action.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
Maybe it's time to push through tough anti-union legislation....
3 out of 8 people working there voted for this, can the 2 not in the union take action against those 3 people?
They just cost them 2 days pay through their greed and of no fault of their own.
oyster said:
Du1point8 said:
legzr1 said:
Du1point8 said:
I think it should be nationalised and unionised, then we can expect more crap like this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
50% of all those eligible to vote voted yes for industrial action.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
Maybe it's time to push through tough anti-union legislation....
3 out of 8 people working there voted for this, can the 2 not in the union take action against those 3 people?
They just cost them 2 days pay through their greed and of no fault of their own.
oyster said:
Why would you lose pay if you don't strike?
the 2 who weren't in the union are under no obligation to strike and if they were prevented from attending work by strikers then it is the strikers who are the problem ( something uncle arthur;s lot forgot in the 80s and damaged the viability of some pits by preventing support staff, NACODS members , members of engineering / crafts unions from attending work )Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 24th September 12:43
mph1977 said:
AJS- said:
blueg33 said:
wheel chair turning circles are mapped when designing disabled access toilets, we build homes for disabled people and the typical wet room (showeroom) will be at least 3m x 3.5m
Oh I've no doubt that they're very convenient and far better than what is available elsewhere.The thing is if you look at it from a point of view of a social good then you have to really ask if the benefit to a tiny number is worth the cost. As pointed out above you could send all the disabled people by taxi and make a saving so it's hard to see that this is worth the extra cost.
mph1977 said:
the 2 who were in the union are under no obligation to strike and if they were prevented from attending work by strikers then it is the strikers who are the problem ( something uncle arthur;s lot forgot in the 80s and damaged the viability of some pits by preventing support staff, NACODS members , members of engineering / crafts unions from attending work )
I'm guessing you meant the two NOT in a union.hidetheelephants said:
There is danger of unintended consequences; having used the wheelchair accessible lavs several times, depending on the track quality and train velocity the urinator/defecator is at risk of being a human pinball due to the paucity of handholds and the large distances betwixt them, and this as an able-bodied person. God knows what it's like for anyone with reduced grip/poor balance etc.
try sitting down next time ... and if you are really that poor at balancing consider the use of the folding handrail ... 
I expect better from you, this isn't the lounge.hidetheelephants said:
mph1977 said:
AJS- said:
blueg33 said:
wheel chair turning circles are mapped when designing disabled access toilets, we build homes for disabled people and the typical wet room (showeroom) will be at least 3m x 3.5m
Oh I've no doubt that they're very convenient and far better than what is available elsewhere.The thing is if you look at it from a point of view of a social good then you have to really ask if the benefit to a tiny number is worth the cost. As pointed out above you could send all the disabled people by taxi and make a saving so it's hard to see that this is worth the extra cost.
V8 Fettler said:
hidetheelephants said:
mph1977 said:
AJS- said:
blueg33 said:
wheel chair turning circles are mapped when designing disabled access toilets, we build homes for disabled people and the typical wet room (showeroom) will be at least 3m x 3.5m
Oh I've no doubt that they're very convenient and far better than what is available elsewhere.The thing is if you look at it from a point of view of a social good then you have to really ask if the benefit to a tiny number is worth the cost. As pointed out above you could send all the disabled people by taxi and make a saving so it's hard to see that this is worth the extra cost.
AJS- said:
Knock it off tonker. There are plenty of gimmicks already out there!
Karl with the greatest respect, I'm sure you're brilliant at your job, and improving the journeys of many commuters and travellers in innumerable ways but I wish they'd do less of this sort of thing. I'm one of those people who never fell out of a slam shut door, who can open or close a window all by myself, keep my head away from posts when it's open, relieve myself in an ordinary sized convenience and can put up with a non-ergonomic seat for an hour.
I can't help but feel that if just some of this effort and expertise was applied to making a functioning and affordable train system, even one with ugly seats, cramped toilets and danger doors, we'd be a lot better off as a result.
It's also hard to escape the impression that so much of this is papering over the cracks. That the various companies involved will say they've invested some impressive figure in "rolling stock" when what they really mean is that they've put bleep bleep doors on the bogs, and hiked up prices another 10%.
And again please don't take this as a personal or professional attack. I don't blame you at all for making your living nor even think you cynical for doing so. It's a matter of the structure of the industry and the priorities it gives.
I do think the designers of commuter trains would benefit from some time spent commuting. I have the misfortune to use the Cambridge - Kings Cross line on a frequent basis. Utterly inadequate space for bicycles, and pretty lousy provision for luggage - the overhead racks are quite shallow, and there are proper racks at one end of a carriage - so you may end up a long way from your luggage. The reconditioned trains are already looking tired and frankly look cheap, and whilst I can understand from a cost/maintenance point of view the removal of flip down, seat back tables, it's a step backwards as far as the passengers are concerned.Karl with the greatest respect, I'm sure you're brilliant at your job, and improving the journeys of many commuters and travellers in innumerable ways but I wish they'd do less of this sort of thing. I'm one of those people who never fell out of a slam shut door, who can open or close a window all by myself, keep my head away from posts when it's open, relieve myself in an ordinary sized convenience and can put up with a non-ergonomic seat for an hour.
I can't help but feel that if just some of this effort and expertise was applied to making a functioning and affordable train system, even one with ugly seats, cramped toilets and danger doors, we'd be a lot better off as a result.
It's also hard to escape the impression that so much of this is papering over the cracks. That the various companies involved will say they've invested some impressive figure in "rolling stock" when what they really mean is that they've put bleep bleep doors on the bogs, and hiked up prices another 10%.
And again please don't take this as a personal or professional attack. I don't blame you at all for making your living nor even think you cynical for doing so. It's a matter of the structure of the industry and the priorities it gives.
Europa1 said:
I do think the designers of commuter trains would benefit from some time spent commuting. I have the misfortune to use the Cambridge - Kings Cross line on a frequent basis. Utterly inadequate space for bicycles, and pretty lousy provision for luggage - the overhead racks are quite shallow, and there are proper racks at one end of a carriage - so you may end up a long way from your luggage. The reconditioned trains are already looking tired and frankly look cheap, and whilst I can understand from a cost/maintenance point of view the removal of flip down, seat back tables, it's a step backwards as far as the passengers are concerned.
In fairness, we have put in luggage racks and boris bike shelfs and people just complain about the lack of seat space.blueg33 said:
I hate people with rucksacks so many seem completely unaware that they are basing people with them, a rucksack in the face is a common thing on a commuter train and the tube. Mind you I would ban thoughtless inconsiderate t
ts from any use of shared space
I'm always confused by (disappointed by, angry with...) people who don't take their rucksack off when standing on the train/tube. Putting the bag between your feet is much more efficient use of space and avoids bashing others. Numpties.ts from any use of shared spaceRichB said:
I strongly suspect they keep them on intentionally in order to gain some extra space.
I don't think so. From experience they tend to get battered about a bit (and rightly so). The rucksack invariably ends up pressed tight against either the door, or another person - actually reduces their personal space in a way!Muppets.
Du1point8 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How do other countries seem to manage with cheap fares, trains that run on time, and ticketing structures where you don't need to book 3 weeks in advance if you don't want to hock a kidney?
I don't know if the answer is nationalised or not, but the current system doesn't seem like a shining example of how to do it properly.
They actually maintain it rather than leave it for 40-50 years and then watch the infrastructure go to sI don't know if the answer is nationalised or not, but the current system doesn't seem like a shining example of how to do it properly.
t.Plus they think in advance and dont need special trains and track built (we have a difference size track to everyone else), etc. etc.
given that you don;t realise that the UK uses Standard guage track, i think your expert opinion can safely be ignored .
mph1977 said:
ah the great myths of european rail based on the LGVs and ICE with a bit of suburban Dutch / german / swiss railways through in
given that you don;t realise that the UK uses Standard guage track, i think your expert opinion can safely be ignored .
I think it is fair to say investment in infrastructure has been way way too long for multiple decades. given that you don;t realise that the UK uses Standard guage track, i think your expert opinion can safely be ignored .
mph1977 said:
Du1point8 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How do other countries seem to manage with cheap fares, trains that run on time, and ticketing structures where you don't need to book 3 weeks in advance if you don't want to hock a kidney?
I don't know if the answer is nationalised or not, but the current system doesn't seem like a shining example of how to do it properly.
They actually maintain it rather than leave it for 40-50 years and then watch the infrastructure go to sI don't know if the answer is nationalised or not, but the current system doesn't seem like a shining example of how to do it properly.
t.Plus they think in advance and dont need special trains and track built (we have a difference size track to everyone else), etc. etc.
given that you don;t realise that the UK uses Standard guage track, i think your expert opinion can safely be ignored .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff