Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Seat reservations

Seat reservations are popular with train companies, but less so with passengers. Research by Transport Watch has revealed that many passengers do not sit in the seat that they reserved. A glance down any carriage will reveal that many of the reserved seats have not been claimed.

If one travels on a long journey, for example, from Cologne to Hamburg, it is like a game of musical chairs as passengers move from one place to another.

There are probably two main reasons why people swap seats. They may not like the look of their neighbouring passengers - a broadcaster on "Thought for the Day" once said that passengers always walked past his compartment if he was wearing his clergyman's collar!

And there is the design of the rolling stock. People prefer a seat with a view out of the train even if they spend most of the journey watching a film on their laptop computer, but in many types of rolling stock introduced since the 1970s, windows and seats are misaligned and the view out is obstructed. This problem has been aggravated by the prevalence of airline-style seating, which also gives rise to a luggage problem. On aircraft there there is secure storage for large items of luggage. On trains, people prefer to have their luggage nearby, and when seats are arranged in facing bays there is space between the seat backs. But when the seats are arranged airline style, the luggage space is lost and space has to be provided somewhere else, usually near the doorway where anyone can walk off with it.

One answer is to reserve a place on the train rather than a particular seat. Another is to provide seating plans so that passengers can choose where they sit, as in the example above from Sweden which can be downloaded from the train company's web site. The real solution, however, is to arrange the vehicle interiors much like the original Danish IC3 stock, which ensures that most people will be satisfied, wherever they sit.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...