Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Government to pay to convert 1st class vehicles to standard



Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, is preparing to pay millions of pounds to turn first-class vehicles to standard-class on First Great Western trains operating into and out of London’s Paddington station.

The simple answer to this is to have a reasonable standard seating density in a single type of vehicle and change the class designation as required. A mark 3 coach will accommodate 76 passengers and their luggage comfortably, which was the arrangement before their most recent refurbishment. The virtual image above illustrates an interior with a mixture of facing bays and airline seating. This gives the same number of seats in a slightly shorter vehicle than the mark three, which could therefore be slightly wider, built almost to the full width of the loading gauge.

Kommentarer

Anonymous sa…
Well I for one wouldn't pay more for a first class seat at the same density .. but I don't anyway - so I'm not in a position to comment.

Surely you are old enough to remember that "standard class" is in fact "second class", or perhaps even old enough to recall that "second class" was really "third class" - I am sufficiently nostalgic to say "2nd class" as a point of stubbornness.

In other news - you should probably read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10551060/HS2-Government-ministers-sat-on-critical-report-by-Department-for-Transport.html if you haven't already..
Physiocrat sa…
Third class compartments in the 1930s typically had an effective seat pitch of between 3ft 1in and 3ft 3inches ie 1.95 per facing bay. This was also the standard class seat spacing in mark 2 stock.

If the vehicles are built to the full width of the loading gauge, they can be 2.82 metres wide externally, ie 2.65 internally from floor level up to elbow height of seated passengers. I would suggest that this is enough for anyone, but it does mean that vehicles probably cannot be more than about 22 metres long. If you want to know what this feels like, it is more or less what you get in a class 180.
Graham sa…
...so lets get this right, you don't want HS2, nor do you want IEP (both of which will provide more capacity and one alternative to HS2 is to convert ICWC trains to either all standard or at least very very little first class) and yet you don't want first class coaches converted to standard class either.

Unfortunately you can not have it all ways, something has to change to cope with the numbers of passengers in the UK. Tinkering with coaches (which seams to be your answer) will not get very far.

Also bear in mind the width per seat when the total internal width of the train is 2.65 or 2.57 (2.74m external) is 2cm, but that is still wider than standard class seat and about mid range for first class seats on any aircraft.
Physiocrat sa…
No you have got this wrong. I don't want HS2 and I don't want IEP. I have argued that these are not cost effective solutions to the capacity problem. But where did I say I don't want first class coaches converted to standard class? What would be a good idea would be to do what Southern has done with some of its Electrostars which provide a reasonably spacious standard seating layout which can be flexibly designated first or standard according to demand, the main reason for travelling first class being so as not to have to travel with the lower orders.

There is an arithmetical error in your last paragraph, you might like to correct it and re-post. The standard external width on eg the 26M long French Corail stock is 2.85. Swedish stock is typically 3M to 3.5M wide with 2+2 seating on the inter-city versions. 2.80M width seems a reasonable target with the thinnest practicable bodysides. That is the width of stock such as the class 375 Electrostars, and although these are a nominal 20M long, a slightly longer vehicle appears to be possible at this width without the need for tapering.

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

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...

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...