"Chris Read" wrote in message
...

"Ed Crowley" wrote:

Some ideas:

1. Ticket barriers at every station

Not practical at very lightly used stations, but otherwise a good idea.
And
preferably 'human' barriers rather than gates - which the anti-social
elements just leap over/climb under, and have allowed rampant fraudulent
travel on child tickets. Obviously, the barriers need to be manned for as
long as the service runs and not abandoned mid-afternoon as mostly happens
at present.

Ticket barriers will pay for themselves eventually. All of the problems you
state with ticket machines could be resolved by changing the design. The
current batch of ticket barriers are not high enough to prevent people
jumping over them and the barriers themselves stay open for long enough to
allow two people through on a single ticket. The child ticket problem is
easy - only sell child tickets from the ticket office!

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:21:50 +0100 someone who may be "Ed Crowley"
wrote this:-

3. A women-only carriage for late-night services.

women tend to feel the most vulnerable using public transport
late at night. I would imagine such an idea would have to be enforced by a
security guard travelling in the women-only carriage

Presumably a female one.

and the communication door would have to be locked.

That would be rather difficult on some lines, as this would not be
allowable under the regulations for working trains through tube
tunnels.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:14 +0100 someone who may be "Ed Crowley"
wrote this:-

The
current batch of ticket barriers are not high enough to prevent people
jumping over them and the barriers themselves stay open for long enough to
allow two people through on a single ticket.

I do hope you are not suggesting something that people with luggage
could not use.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:14 +0100 someone who may be "Ed Crowley"
wrote this:-

The
current batch of ticket barriers are not high enough to prevent
people
jumping over them and the barriers themselves stay open for long
enough to
allow two people through on a single ticket.

I do hope you are not suggesting something that people with luggage
could not use.

How about a return to the idea of a gate with an attached luggage
'chute' like to original Victoria Line gates?

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:14 +0100 someone who may be "Ed Crowley"
wrote this:-

The
current batch of ticket barriers are not high enough to prevent
people
jumping over them and the barriers themselves stay open for long
enough to
allow two people through on a single ticket.

I do hope you are not suggesting something that people with luggage
could not use.

How about a return to the idea of a gate with an attached luggage
'chute' like to original Victoria Line gates?

I'm intrigued. Do you have any links to pictures of these?

Segregating 153s could be tricky :-) You would also need some way of
enforcing the rule. Would people be willing to sit in the luggage
racks on packed-to-the-roof trains, when there was plenty of space in
an adjacent women-only coach?

Statistically it may well be white males aged 18-24 that are most at risk
of
attack, but women tend to feel the most vulnerable using public transport
late at night. I would imagine such an idea would have to be enforced by
a
security guard travelling in the women-only carriage and the communication
door would have to be locked.

Not only are the vast majority of attacks on males, but females are more
likely to be attacked by other females. I think locking the communication
door would make most people feel more worried.

Bit like corridor stock. Nowhere to go if someone blocks one door.

"Ed Crowley" wrote in message
...

I do hope you are not suggesting something that people with
luggage
could not use.

How about a return to the idea of a gate with an attached luggage
'chute' like to original Victoria Line gates?

I'm intrigued. Do you have any links to pictures of these?

Sorry, not to hand. It was nothing clever; just a set of rollers next
to one of the gates so you could push your cases through as you went
through the gate

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:59:58 +0100 someone who may be "Stimpy"
wrote this:-

the barriers themselves stay open for long
enough to allow two people through on a single ticket.

I do hope you are not suggesting something that people with luggage
could not use.

How about a return to the idea of a gate with an attached luggage
'chute' like to original Victoria Line gates?

It would need to take all sorts of luggage, some of which might be
heavy.

It might or might not be acceptable to have difficult to use
barriers on urban railways, but long distance passengers in
particular would find them objectionable if they made carrying
luggage more difficult. Some would travel by other means instead.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

As Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:59:58 +0100 appeared fresh and rosy-fingered,
"Stimpy" wrote:

How about a return to the idea of a gate with an attached luggage
'chute' like to original Victoria Line gates?

ISTR lugagge side-gate things on the Metropolitain line at KX-StP. My
ticket was rejected, there were no staff to hand and the train was
coming, so I went through it myself - which defeats the point, really!


--
Arthur Figgis

Joe Patrick wrote:
On average, every year LU pays £10million 'correcting'
vandals' work.

This is a useful statistic. Thank you.

Now, it would cost about the same to employ 400 extra people. They
probably wouldn't stop it all, but they would also make money by
reducing ticketless travel and increasing ticketed travel by making the
tube less frightening to use at night.

Let's have 200 people operating an extra shift at stations that are
currently unmanned some of the time. 75 can be roving ticket
inspectors/deterrents. Another 50 can watch screens and direct the
others to signs of trouble. and the last 75 can be extra BTP policemen.
I think that lot would show a profit, make the tube a much nicer system
to use, and probably cut vandalism and ticket evasion by about 80% each.

Of course, you'd then have to stop the bean-counters saying "Look, we've
only got a little vandalism and evasion now - let's get rid of these
people again."

This is the sort of argument that all but eliminated the beat policeman
- the crime prevented by their presence didn't get counted.

The ONLY way to stop vandalism is to increase the chance of getting
caught. The severity of the punishment is of secondary importance.

Surely they could find a building and link up the trains for
about £100million. Or, have someone in the back of the train and make use of
the current platform monitors.

See above. We want revenue expenditure, not capital, to give permanent
benefit.


Colin McKenzie