Quiet Coaches

AndrewP · 3 Apr 2019

There's some good comments here. Everything boils down to respect and good manners.

With kids the I always think the main thing is that the parents are doing their best and not just ignoring them (if mine had a meltdown they were dragged to the vestibule) and never booked in a quiet coach.

However some people are unrealistic - I was once asked not to talk as it was the quiet carriage when It wasn't and another time when someone asked if we could be silent so they could sleep at 1 in the afternoon - again not a quiet carriage.

The one that always made me smile was those who thought that kids should never be in first class and if the train was busy they should move from their paid for reserved seats! Jog on!

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 3 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
To say children shouldn’t travel is frankly ridiculous. Sadly, it’s reflective of the intolerant society we’ve become.

I maintain my view that very young children (under 5 or thereabouts) should not travel on long-haul flights, and ideally not on any at all, except where family circumstances make it effectively non-discretionary - that was the specific point. It's cruel to them, and unpleasant for everyone else on the flight when they inevitably get upset. The child's welfare and that of the other people on the flight must supercede the parents' wish for a long-haul holiday when their child is too young to appreciate one.

It is surely not too much to ask that parents give up far-flung holidays for just 5 years of their child's life.

FWIW, taking children on flights where they will hate all 12 hours of it (as an adult who likes to be physically active and doesn't like to sit watching the telly for 12 hours I find them boring enough) is what is inconsiderate. They didn't ask to go to Thailand (or wherever) on holiday, they are not old enough to understand. Similarly it's inconsiderate against other passengers to have a screaming child in such close quarters. This all sits with, for example, people allowing children to play TV shows out loud on trains, which seems the rule rather than the exception now with no willingness to enforce the relevant Byelaw which is there for everyone's good.

It's this lack of considerateness that is the big problem with society. People are unwilling to restrict their own activities to ensure the greater good - everyone knows their rights, and not their responsibilities. Responsibilities first, rights second, is where it should be.

Deafdoggie · 3 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I maintain my view that very young children (under 5 or thereabouts) should not travel on long-haul flights, and ideally not on any at all, except where family circumstances make it effectively non-discretionary - that was the specific point. It's cruel to them, and unpleasant for everyone else on the flight when they inevitably get upset. The child's welfare and that of the other people on the flight must supercede the parents' wish for a long-haul holiday when their child is too young to appreciate one.

It is surely not too much to ask that parents give up far-flung holidays for just 5 years of their child's life.

FWIW, taking children on flights where they will hate all 12 hours of it (as an adult who likes to be physically active and doesn't like to sit watching the telly for 12 hours I find them boring enough) is what is inconsiderate. They didn't ask to go to Thailand (or wherever) on holiday, they are not old enough to understand. Similarly it's inconsiderate against other passengers to have a screaming child in such close quarters. This all sits with, for example, people allowing children to play TV shows out loud on trains, which seems the rule rather than the exception now with no willingness to enforce the relevant Byelaw which is there for everyone's good.

It's this lack of considerateness that is the big problem with society. People are unwilling to restrict their own activities to ensure the greater good - everyone knows their rights, and not their responsibilities. Responsibilities first, rights second, is where it should be.

I do agree with this, I have never taken my children abroad. Yes, there are certain times, for some people when it is unavoidable, for the most part it is. But not a domestic UK rail journey, children do have to travel.

Bletchleyite · 3 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
I do agree with this, I have never taken my children abroad. Yes, there are certain times, for some people when it is unavoidable, for the most part it is. But not a domestic UK rail journey, children do have to travel.

Indeed, and my point specifically related to flights (which are an altogether less familiar, more enclosed and "scarier" thing than train journeys).

With trains you can mitigate it a bit, too. For instance, if you know your child can't sit still for more than an hour, break your journey up a bit. I like to do this as an adult anyway - I often route via and stop at New St to get some food and a cup of tea when making a WCML journey that could just go down the Trent Valley.

47434 · 3 Apr 2019

My view is no mobile phone conversations, music/vid through headphones on a low setting but chit chat in person perfectly acceptable.

Bletchleyite · 3 Apr 2019

47434 said:
My view is no mobile phone conversations, music/vid through headphones on a low setting but chit chat in person perfectly acceptable.

I would agree. It's much easier to keep your voice low when talking to another person, and it's not as mentally frustrating as hearing half a conversation is.

FWIW, other than the phone conversations which would be OK as long as they were conducted at an appropriate volume and not ever on speaker, I would say these should be the default in ALL coaches - they are simply basic consideration for others.

fishquinn · 3 Apr 2019

47434 said:
My view is no mobile phone conversations, music/vid through headphones on a low setting but chit chat in person perfectly acceptable.

Agreed. A year or two ago I was in the quiet coach on a GWR HST, travelling alone and just sat making no noise looking out the window. A row in front of me was a couple of people quietly chatting between themselves when someone across the aisle told them to stop talking because it was the quiet coach. One of the guys instantly replied that it was the quiet coach, not the silent coach and that quiet conversation was fine and the other pointed out that one of the things explicitly banned in the coach was talking on the phone, as the 'complainer' had been doing not 5 minutes before! Some people... :rolleyes:

AndrewP · 3 Apr 2019

We took our kids flying from very young but started with very short haul (1-2 hr) and introduced longer flights as they got older.

Lots of comfort and entertainment with over ear headphones has meant they have been no hassle. In fact they have had more hassle from the 'instant recliners' who can't sit upright at meals or any other stage but I think they annoy everyone. Now in early teens they are better travellers than most adults!

kristiang85 · 3 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I maintain my view that very young children (under 5 or thereabouts) should not travel on long-haul flights, and ideally not on any at all, except where family circumstances make it effectively non-discretionary - that was the specific point. It's cruel to them, and unpleasant for everyone else on the flight when they inevitably get upset. The child's welfare and that of the other people on the flight must supercede the parents' wish for a long-haul holiday when their child is too young to appreciate one.

It is surely not too much to ask that parents give up far-flung holidays for just 5 years of their child's life.

FWIW, taking children on flights where they will hate all 12 hours of it (as an adult who likes to be physically active and doesn't like to sit watching the telly for 12 hours I find them boring enough) is what is inconsiderate. They didn't ask to go to Thailand (or wherever) on holiday, they are not old enough to understand. Similarly it's inconsiderate against other passengers to have a screaming child in such close quarters. This all sits with, for example, people allowing children to play TV shows out loud on trains, which seems the rule rather than the exception now with no willingness to enforce the relevant Byelaw which is there for everyone's good.

It's this lack of considerateness that is the big problem with society. People are unwilling to restrict their own activities to ensure the greater good - everyone knows their rights, and not their responsibilities. Responsibilities first, rights second, is where it should be.

I totally agree with this post, especially the long haul travel points - as a regular traveller myself, I am very much prepared to have a few years of my life without it if/when I have children.

In terms of the railways, small things that require no effort make such a difference for society as a whole. It amazes me how parents let children play music/games with loud volume in public - it just means they end up being conditioned to not caring a jot about other peoples' enviroment. A simple "when in public please turn the volume off so as not to disturb others" will mean they grow up with that in their mind. And yes, small children will have tantrums, but why not take them to a vestibule to calm down (obviously difficult on overcrowded trains though).

Mag_seven · 3 Apr 2019

What people forget is that "quiet coaches" originally started off as "mobile free" coaches as the most noise tended to be generated by people speaking loudly into them. There was never any suggestion that ordinary conversation was not allowed.

Juniper Driver · 3 Apr 2019

Deafdoggie said:
The trouble on here is, everyone swears blind they were well behaved when they were children and never screamed or cried or made any fuss. Although these people seem to make the biggest fuss now!

My children are older now, but if there is a parent “struggling” with a child on a journey I always try to make a point of saying it’s fine, don’t worry, been there! Indeed, I’m grateful I’m not the parent having to deal with it, I can sit back and ignore it.

To say children shouldn’t travel is frankly ridiculous. Sadly, it’s reflective of the intolerant society we’ve become.

Got to agree.It doesn't really bother me and I've done quite a few long haul flights.

Bletchleyite · 3 Apr 2019

Mag_seven said:
What people forget is that "quiet coaches" originally started off as "mobile free" coaches as the most noise tended to be generated by people speaking loudly into them. There was never any suggestion that ordinary conversation was not allowed.

Indeed, they originated from the fact that people tend to shout into mobiles because they don't have feedback into the earpiece. This is much less of a problem now.

Maybe they should be abolished in favour of a "code of conduct" for all coaches - keep conversations to a sensible level, don't shout into your phone, never play audio devices so anyone else can hear, with a reminder of the relevant Byelaw?

underbank · 3 Apr 2019

Trouble with "normal" conversation is that some people just naturally talk loud and make no effort to reduce their own volume as they don't realise just how loud they are.

I can sit opposite people on a train or infront/behind people on a plane, and hear every word they say, yet on the next journey, barely hear a word of their conversation as they're talking quietly.

It's a shame that people are so quick to take offence when politely asked to be a little quieter.

ejstubbs · 3 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed, they originated from the fact that people tend to shout into mobiles because they don't have feedback into the earpiece. This is much less of a problem now.

There are still some people who just don't seem to understand the concept of a "telephone", and bellow in to the mouthpiece whether it's a mobile or a desk phone handset. (Many, many years ago - way before mobile phones were invented - I worked with a guy like that. We worked on quite a large site and he would regularly need to make phone calls to a colleague in a building at the other end of the site. We used to reckon that all he actually had to do was open the window and the other guy would be able to hear him perfectly clearly!)

(And don't get me started on the disruptive effect of colleagues participating in audio conferences in an open-plan office, even using a headset... Then there's the ones who eat while on a on call, without muting their mic - there's a special place in hell reserved for them.)

Bwsbro · 3 Apr 2019

Quiet Coaches are a bit hit and miss today. Last week I was traveling up and down the West Coast Mainline for work, i happened to sit in the quiet carriage in both directions.

On the 1st journey the quiet policy wasn't policed at all - No announcements were made from the Guard

Meanwhile on the Return journey this was policed heavily. The guard gave multiple announcements along the journey to remind customers that they were sitting in a quiet carriage

Essexman · 3 Apr 2019

I pointed out to man using phone on GWR today that it was a Quiet Coach. He hadn't seen the sign. There's only one and it's too small to see from end of coach. But he carried on, albeit quieter. The Train Manager then came round checking tickets and said nothing to him - until I asked when he went back and the bloke ended his call. Surely Train Managers should say something as a matter of course. I did tweet GWR saying need more & bigger signs, but no reply.

sefton · 3 Apr 2019

47434 said:
My view is ... chit chat in person perfectly acceptable.

It isn't.

If you want to chat, choose a seat other than in the quiet coach.

Yes quiet isn't silent, but there shouldn't be any unnecessary noise and chatting is unnecessary.

trebor79 · 3 Apr 2019

sefton said:
It isn't.

If you want to chat, choose a seat other than in the quiet coach.

Yes quiet isn't silent, but there shouldn't be any unnecessary noise and chatting is unnecessary.

Nah. If I was having a quiet chat and you came and asked me to shut up I'd tell you to get stuffed.

Deafdoggie · 3 Apr 2019

trebor79 said:
Nah. If I was having a quiet chat and you came and asked me to shut up I'd tell you to get stuffed.

And quite rightly. QUIET coach NOT silent coach. These people need to get a car. If you need silence, I’m afraid public transport isn’t for you.

boxy321 · 4 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Try the south WCML in the morning peak. Woe betide anyone who makes any noise at all in any coach.

This morning on said train there were two Outlook bashers having a battle of the keyboards. Illuminated keys on show (obviously) to maintain the precise, triumphant smash of the space and return keys at the end of each word and paragraph.

There must be special PCs available for use on trains for the 'look at me I'm working' brigade to pose with. I'd rather sit next to a bunch of kids than listen to a travelling office typing pool for even 5 minutes.

Having said that Friday mornings (northbound) are incredibly quiet after the London iMac lot have gone back south for the weekend.

kristiang85 · 4 Apr 2019

boxy321 said:
This morning on said train there were two Outlook bashers having a battle of the keyboards. Illuminated keys on show (obviously) to maintain the precise, triumphant smash of the space and return keys at the end of each word and paragraph.

There must be special PCs available for use on trains for the 'look at me I'm working' brigade to pose with. I'd rather sit next to a bunch of kids than listen to a travelling office typing pool for even 5 minutes.

Having said that Friday mornings (northbound) are incredibly quiet after the London iMac lot have gone back south for the weekend.

It is rather irritating, I had someone particularly loud the other day.

I know I type loudly and my keyboard doesn't help, so I generally avoid working on trains for that reason as I don't want to be that guy. But when I do need to, I always activate the touch screen keyboard. Its slower, but I feel I'm doing my bit for commuting sanity.

RLBH · 5 Apr 2019

ejstubbs said:
There are still some people who just don't seem to understand the concept of a "telephone", and bellow in to the mouthpiece whether it's a mobile or a desk phone handset. (Many, many years ago - way before mobile phones were invented - I worked with a guy like that. We worked on quite a large site and he would regularly need to make phone calls to a colleague in a building at the other end of the site. We used to reckon that all he actually had to do was open the window and the other guy would be able to hear him perfectly clearly!)

Add to that the number of people these days who consider holding their phone to their ear to be far too inconvenient and use it as a speakerphone even in public. I'm not quite sure what the logic is, other than sheer lack of consideration.

sefton said:
It isn't.

If you want to chat, choose a seat other than in the quiet coach.

Yes quiet isn't silent, but there shouldn't be any unnecessary noise and chatting is unnecessary.

Conversation at a reasonable level, such that the participants in the conversation can hear one another without the sound carrying, is perfectly okay in my book. Bellowing down the carriage to get the attention of other passengers or shrieking excitedly at one another, not so much.

In an ideal world, this would be understood to apply in all carriages, and special 'quiet carriages' wouldn't be needed for people to behave politely. But this isn't an ideal world.

ejstubbs · 5 Apr 2019

RLBH said:
Add to that the number of people these days who consider holding their phone to their ear to be far too inconvenient and use it as a speakerphone even in public. I'm not quite sure what the logic is, other than sheer lack of consideration.

I've always assumed that they like to pretend that they're on The Apprentice*. They seem unaware of the fact that the "competitors" on that ”show” are without exception imbecilic t0553rs, so by trying to emulate them they make themselves look like imbeciles too.

* Of course the only reason they do that is because it's the only way that the TV crew can capture both parties' moronic wibbling. Not because it's actually in any way "cool", but simply because of the technical limitations of the medium on which they've chosen to exhibit their unparalleled plonkerhood. Why does the Beeb persist in making that wretched excuse for entertainment anyway?

Gems · 5 Apr 2019

Always pleased to work the Settle-Carlisle. You know once you leave Settle the inane phone conversation everyone else can hear will shortly end due to a lack of phone coverage. Makes me laugh when you reach Langcliffe cutting and it happens. They look at their phones in disbelief shouting "Hello, Hello, can you hear me"
Yes we can hear you, but we'd rather not.

Journeyman · 5 Apr 2019

boxy321 said:
There must be special PCs available for use on trains for the 'look at me I'm working' brigade to pose with. I'd rather sit next to a bunch of kids than listen to a travelling office typing pool for even 5 minutes.

Agreed, there's few sounds more irritating than someone bashing a keyboard very loudly in close proximity. I've actually got up and moved to get away from it on a few occasions.

Journeyman · 5 Apr 2019

ejstubbs said:
I've always assumed that they like to pretend that they're on The Apprentice*. They seem unaware of the fact that the "competitors" on that ”show” are without exception imbecilic t0553rs, so by trying to emulate them they make themselves look like imbeciles too.

Completely OTT, but I once worked with Tim Campbell, the very first winner of The Apprentice, and a nicer guy you couldn't hope to meet. I worked for London Underground at the time, and he joined the year after I did. I met him at an event I helped organise for graduate trainees.

He disappeared off on leave and was all mysterious about it, next thing we knew he was on the telly!

After that, though, everyone decided they had to pee on their own grandmothers to win, and we ended up with horrors like Katie Hopkins taking part.

Bletchleyite · 5 Apr 2019

Journeyman said:
Completely OTT, but I once worked with Tim Campbell, the very first winner of The Apprentice, and a nicer guy you couldn't hope to meet. I worked for London Underground at the time, and he joined the year after I did. I met him at an event I helped organise for graduate trainees.

He disappeared off on leave and was all mysterious about it, next thing we knew he was on the telly!

After that, though, everyone decided they had to pee on their own grandmothers to win, and we ended up with horrors like Katie Hopkins taking part.

The first couple of series were genuinely interesting shows which seemed to be actually about business. Despite the host being the biggest, er, unprintable in the world[1], the American series seems, perhaps surprisingly, to have managed to retain this. The later UK ones were typical reality TV dross and I'm starting to get bored of them.

[1] From watching that he actually comes across as reasonable, much more so than Lord Sugar, so I was actually surprised at his approach to the Presidency.

Journeyman · 5 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The first couple of series were genuinely interesting shows which seemed to be actually about business. Despite the host being the biggest, er, unprintable in the world[1], the American series seems, perhaps surprisingly, to have managed to retain this. The later UK ones were typical reality TV dross and I'm starting to get bored of them.

I've never been much of a fan, but a few years ago, my mother-in-law was visiting, and insisted on watching it. It was the in-depth interview episode. I was absolutely flabbergasted about how little the candidates knew about Lord Sugar's business career. Most of them didn't even mention Amstrad. Considering it's now the work of a moment to Google someone, I found this hard to believe. In the mid-to-late-nineties, preparing for a job interview involved having to dig out annual reports in the local library and was quite time-consuming, so you could just about be forgiven for not being brilliantly informed. There's absolutely no excuse for that now.

Ianno87 · 5 Apr 2019

Gems said:
Always pleased to work the Settle-Carlisle. You know once you leave Settle the inane phone conversation everyone else can hear will shortly end due to a lack of phone coverage. Makes me laugh when you reach Langcliffe cutting and it happens. They look at their phones in disbelief shouting "Hello, Hello, can you hear me"
Yes we can hear you, but we'd rather not.

What is irritating is when they keep trying to make the call, and failing....again, and again, and again - when in quite obviously a remote or terrain-y area.

Bletchleyite said:
The first couple of series were genuinely interesting shows which seemed to be actually about business. Despite the host being the biggest, er, unprintable in the world[1], the American series seems, perhaps surprisingly, to have managed to retain this. The later UK ones were typical reality TV dross and I'm starting to get bored of them.

[1] From watching that he actually comes across as reasonable, much more so than Lord Sugar, so I was actually surprised at his approach to the Presidency.

The editing of Lord (then Sir Alan) Sugar in the early series made him seem like a right cantankerous unreasonable grump. It's lightened up (with his humour included) much more in more recent series - I understand after dissatisfaction at his own portrayal.

infobleep · 5 Apr 2019

satisnek said:
It's not necessary to use commercial recordings - 7kHz tone works a treat. Having experimented with sine wave sweeps, I've found that my own phone's 'loudspeaker' (which I'm sure is fairly typical) has a clearly audible peak at this frequency. It's a piercing high-pitched whistle which is difficult to determine where it's coming from.

Anyway, one Saturday evening last year I was on the New Street to Worcester service. Two moronic teenagers boarded at Bromsgrove and promptly turned their 'music' on. So I gave them a blast. They turned it down and I turned it off. Then they tried again and I responded. This sequence - up/on, down/off, up/on, down/off - continued all the way to Droitwich where I alighted. Presumably they continued to Worcester playing their noise unchallenged. They were simply too self-important to get the message.

My next idea is to use high frequencies which only young people can hear, but this will require a dedicated device because it's not possible with a phone.

You can get apps on your phone that will do that. A friend told me about one. Not that I've used it on public transport.

Quiet Coaches

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member