Re: MORE SillyRail Gripes

[stang@iweb.net.au (Aidan Stanger)]

David Proctor <daproc@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Aidan Stanger wrote in message <199803040143111016872@ppp85.iweb.net.au>...
> 
> >I'd read the corrected version of your original posting, but thought 90%
> >full meant 90% of SEATS full.
> 
> That is correct - seating capacity of an Endeavour is 187 - there were
> approx. 160 people ex-Sydney.  17 alighted at Glenfield, and 5 boarded,
> meaning there were approx. 143 people on board. 25 left the train at
> Campbelltown, meaning that before anybody boarded, 118 people on board.
> 
So your original post was stating that you thought passengers who
travelled on just the part of the journey where the train WASN'T full
should be fined - without mentioning until a later posting the far
bigger problem of there not being enough seats? It seems so absurd that
I thought it must be a mistake on your part. I stand corrected.

(snip)
> >without those extra passengers at the start, there's no guarantee you'd
> >be able to find two seats together.
> 
> Why not - I would imagine that in a train with 2+3 seating, that was only
> 67% full, there would be a pretty good chance of getting two seats together.
> 
A pretty good chance is no guarantee, but I didn't know it was 2+3
seating (and I doubted your 67% figure for reasons mentioned above)

> >Optional seat reservations would solve that problem,
> 
> Wouldnt work on this sort of service.
> 
Why not? I know compulsary reservations wouldn't work, but optional
reservations are far more practical than fining paying passengers in
otherwise empty seats!

> >and there's definately a case for increasing the
> >frequency.
> 
> Couldn't agree with you more! - This seems to be the only thing we have
> agreed on!
> 
Yes, but I hadn't realised quite how strong that case was!

--
Aidan Stanger
Junk email will be charged at 5 millicoulombs/line