)
).WSW and w0033944 how much money do you think should be spent in total and what do you think are the 'realistic' passenger gains (IE extra money earned) to the railway for the amount spent?
IE to use the modern buzz words, what is the cost/benefit ratio of these schemes?
Oh and before you get all arsey about me being anti-disabled (or whatever) I just dont want to see an ever diminishing pot of money being spent where there is absolutely zero (or minimal) actual benefit!
I do inner suburban/ outer suburban/ express work and I can safely say that I very very rarely see anyone use the enhanced access facilities that actually needs them (note mothers with their 4x4 buggies dont count
Most disabled passengers can get around really well thank you without the railways having to spend millions on facilities that may be used once or twice a year!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually another question for you both, what percentage of the budget/ how much a year should the railways spend a year on these enhancements?
Okay if money was no object then fair enough get spending/ building, but that isnt the case and is never likely to be in the future either.
but just imagine how b****y difficult that would be - welcome to our world.So you want the railways to spend millions because you might decide to use them!
Many a true word spoken in jest, and by your inferred tone I bet you would laugh your head off if that did happen.Maybe "reverse accessibility" should be put in place. That should save millions on maintaining stepped footbridges/underpasses and un-necessary platforms. Demolish/close them! Why have a dedicated platform on each the Up and Down roads? Just demolish one. And then make everyone go via a distant road bridge, or be forced continue on the train to a distant station and catch a train back to the "accessible" platform. This is in jest
Steve
) but they were so far up their own arses with the me me me attitude I gave up in the end, they were not nice people and couldnt give a stuff about the 1000s of people they were inconveniencing. Low floor buses were being introduced but they wanted all buses replaced immediately. So you want the railways to spend millions because you might decide to use them!
You would class that as a good use of money would you?
Many a true word spoken in jest, and by your inferred tone I bet you would laugh your head off if that did happen.
Oh in some ways it already has, when the 456s were introduced they had a non accessible toilet fitted but because of the uproar about accessibility they were removed so nobody had a toilet so everyone lost, the excuse was that they didnt need a toilet as they worked suburban routes but some of us like to think the it was because of the complaints and why remove something that you have just paid for?
Life isnt fair, it never has been and it never will be and forcing the railways IE the tax payer (do you pay tax?) to spend millions wont make it any fairer!
When I was a bus driver I once got caught up in one of these demonstrations where wheelchair used handcuffed themselves to buses so they effectively blocked the roads, I sat and tried to talk to them about it to find out what they were expecting to gain (I also asked what I had done to them but never got an answer
Funnily enough I dont think I ever had more than 2 wheelchair users a day use the buses when I was on them and by the time I left all the routes I worked (apart from 1) were low floor. Make of that what you will but the cost/benefit ratio certainly doesnt add up on the buses and it never will on the railways either and spending millions just because somebody may decide to use the trains is a waste of money, of course do the main stations and the ones that are easy but a lot of the smaller ones are not practical to modify and never will be, maybe you would like them closed so 'we are all in it together'!
who suggested it was? when a company has to remove brand new trains because the toilet isn't big enough meaning nobody has a toilet on a journey that is probably a rather long journey then their is a problem and sadly some will just have to lose out
in terms of equality maybe but in terms of reality no it isn't, its like saying because someone else is suffering everyone else has to as well, thats not fair either.
from his post i'd suggest it wasn't about the protest but the attitude of the people there, being someone who is disabled myself i can see that some disabled people and representitive groups think the world should revolve around them and that everyone should drop everything for them, i'm not saying thats you or anyone else here for that matter but their are people like that and who aren't helping the situation whats so ever, being someone who isn't in a wheelchair thankfully i can't imagine how hard it is for someone who is but sometimes things take time or won't be done as theirs not enough usage to justify get it done at least in the short term.
Try Warwick Parkway - a relatively new station (opened 2000) yet it has a massive gap. I've heard one conductor wryly call it "generous". I've seen several folks struggling to get off, including with luggage (the guard was standing right next to them not helping!). Mobility impaired would be a nightmare.
Following that logic, why make anything accessible to them? Libraries? They can use the internet. Supermarkets? They can buy online? pelican crossing beep when you cross? No more. Or those little bumpy bits on the pavements at crossings (for hard of vision)? Scrap them. Or lowed curbs at footcrossings - they shouldn't be crossing the street!
Presumably because the trains they replaced had toilets?455driver said:
