Seating

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by district, 2 Nov 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. district

    district Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2011
    Location:
    SE16
    Open discussion here:

    • Do you think CHILD ticket holders should give up a seat for a full paying adult?
    • Do you think PRIV ticket holders or free staff travel should give up a seat for a full paying adult?
    • Should a pushchair vacate the train if a wheelchair needs it?

    I will be really interested to hear what you think :)
     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. Intermodal

    Intermodal Member

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    3 Nov 2010
    Location:
    The North East
    Do you think railcard holders should give up their seat for a person travelling on an undiscounted ticket?
     
  4. FGWman

    FGWman Member

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    10 Dec 2010
    1 No. They have a ticket so why should they give up their seat. Next thing you will be saying senior railcard ticket holders should vacate their seat to someone who has an undiscounted ticket

    2. Yes Its actually in the T&C anyway that they should vacate a seat if required.

    3. Yes the space is only there for wheelchairs. Pushchairs can be folded and the baby held by the parent if necessary.
     
  5. district

    district Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2011
    Location:
    SE16
    That's a difficult one!

    Perhaps since a railcard is generally in the public domain (unlike priv and child) then no?
     
  6. rail-britain

    rail-britain Established Member

    Messages:
    4,105
    Joined:
    12 Aug 2007
    No person, with a ticket, should have to give up a seat, unless it is already reserved
    That is the whole point and purpose of a ticket
     
  7. district

    district Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2011
    Location:
    SE16
    A ticket gives you authority to travel, it doesn't guarantee you a seat (unless you have an accompanying reservation).
     
  8. wintonian

    wintonian Established Member

    Messages:
    4,889
    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Hampshire
    A railcard holder could sit on 66% of the seat and the PRIV holder could have 25% that then leaves 9% elbow room for them.

    Or do you think that wouldn't work? :p
     
  9. SS4

    SS4 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,391
    Joined:
    30 Jan 2011
    Location:
    Birmingham
    No, you pay your money and take your chance. Discounted tickets are just as valid as undiscounted tickets so the current system is fine.

    Yes, but only if the pushchair occupies the disabled space

    I could just imagine the uproar if some business type, or worse a teenager (w/o railcard) demanded an old woman vacate her seat for them. Unless of course by "Railcard" you mean "16-25 Railcard"? Apologies if this comes across as offensive, I'm not sure how else to put it.
     
  10. camperdown9

    camperdown9 Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    2 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Chestfield, Kent & Chatillon Sur-Seine, Burgundy
    Does anyone else wish that operators would do more to stop standard class ticket holders sitting in first?

    And to keep all fare dodgers off trains?
     
  11. SS4

    SS4 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,391
    Joined:
    30 Jan 2011
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Yes, especially the Basil Fawlty in me, although I'm more live and let live if they're not annoying me. I can only imagine how many staff see me looking like a scruffy goit and think I do not belong in 1st.

    I'd love to see that but idk how since it appears TOCs would rather let it slide rather than hire the necessary staff, especially on local routes
     
  12. lookingforit35

    lookingforit35 Member

    Messages:
    287
    Joined:
    2 May 2011
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Do wheelchair users actually like the space that is allocated to them? On 375s it's next to the toilet and stinks. Well meant I'm sure but pretty grotty.
     
  13. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,398
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    I'm still stuck in understanding the original question.
    What does "should" mean?

    Is it a necessary consequence of something?
    Is it a moral imperative?
    Is it an interpretation of Rules?
    Is it a personal wish for altered rules?
    Is it an expectation of an unnecessary outcome?
    Is it shorthand for our experiences in the majority of cases?

    You'll get different answers depending on what you want to discuss.
    Anyway, in most practical circumstances, you'd probably have additional details which might influence the outcomes and these are likely to involve the relative agility of the passengers, their needs and travel plans, recognition of people travellng in a group, and an assessment of the overall accomodation throughout the train.

    And what has the price of a ticket got to do with "should"?
     
  14. district

    district Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2011
    Location:
    SE16
    Morally if you've paid full price for a ticket surely you should get a seat over someone who hasn't paid at all?
     
  15. lookingforit35

    lookingforit35 Member

    Messages:
    287
    Joined:
    2 May 2011
    Location:
    Nowhere
    We could all wear badges showing how much we have paid for our tickets...........
     
  16. DaveNewcastle

    DaveNewcastle Established Member Fares Advisor

    Messages:
    7,398
    Joined:
    21 Dec 2007
    Location:
    Newcastle (unless I'm out)
    But my problem with this is that I want to find a theoretical framework which we can use to apply the facts of these two passengers and, by some process, arrive at your conclusion. (If you are really interested, then you'll know that these problems are known as 'normative' by philosophers and others).

    Using your example, I'll just challenge your reasoning with two examples:
    (I'm not sure where a passenger who hasn't paid anything cae in here - we were comparing prices and discounts a few minutes ago!)
    1. I've paid full price for my Temple Meads to Clifton journey and have my bicycle with me. The Guard is coming through selling tix as usual. Someone else has no ticket and is likely to exploit any opp. to avoid paying.
    I'd rather stay with my bike, standing.
    2. I've paid full price for my London - Edinburgh First Class ticket (actually, its an Advance, so maybe only £60 or so) on a packed Bank Holiday service, with my shoulder bag. Someone else has less limbs than me and a large case and a needy child. I use the word "should" differently.

    I'm sorry if I appear to be difficult. Actually, I want to encourage you to think through what you mean by "should" more thoroughly in the hope that we get somewhere useful with this. The Railway regulations are in need of updating, and Regulations which are more appropriate for our world would hepl us all. But a simple "should" just doesn't have the incisive power of better informed ways of analysing rail useage.
     
  17. Badger

    Badger Member

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    17 Oct 2011
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    I don't like disabled seats.

    Yes, disabled people need equal opportunities, I don't doubt that.

    But having "the disabled seat" is a bit useless. It implies that every train will have one, and only one, disabled person.

    If we are going to always have disabled allocations on trains, then a better system would be to have movable seats and such, for a modular system so the coach can have 0 to many disabled seats rather than one and always one.

    It's a tricky one.

    Anyway.

    No... Personally children should have to pay adult fares, since they take up the same amount of (seated) room. But if we sell a discounted ticket it's the fault of the seller and not the passenger. They've bought a ticket and sat down, the end.

    Same again. If it's a problem them... don't have the reduced fares in the first place.

    See above on disabled seats. But while we have the current system, yes, they should vacate the space. Pushchairs can be folded and babies held. To be honest people shouldn't be bringing unfolded pushchairs onto trains in any case, especially not busy ones. It's unfair to other people and they take up way too much room.
     
  18. district

    district Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2011
    Location:
    SE16
    Sorry, just wanted to add under 5's who weren't paying and parents who think that they are entitled to a seat.
    That's your choice, your ticket entitles you to travel in any public area of the train surely? :)
    Yeah, so it's a discretion/circumstantial issue.
    No not at all. As an AS Philosophy student I'm really enjoying this thread and I'd love to debate what 'should' means to me, you, the guard of our hypothetical train and all the parties involved!
     
  19. adtrainz

    adtrainz Member

    Messages:
    79
    Joined:
    4 Jun 2011
    Attempting to be as unbiased as possible here, but probably failing...:roll:

    No, not at all. The ticket has been paid for, that is surely all that matters (to the TOC, at least) Of course an Under-5 should sit on the parent's lap, if a paying passenger is standing.

    PRIV...maybe not, but for free travel, definitely.

    Well I agree with Badger on that one.

    Obviously there's still the ethical issues (elderly, disabled etc..) but I don't think price, however discounted (unless 100%) should matter in terms of giving up a seat.

    And, for the record, I travel at child rate, on an annual season, and almost always get a seat on boarding. The train gets busier later on, and I will give it up if an elderly or less able bodied person is standing nearby, but otherwise, the armrest is down...
     
  20. shedman

    shedman Member

    Messages:
    365
    Joined:
    14 Feb 2011
    Just a quick point about discounted tickets, I recently travelled to Aviemore with some friends. I got PRIV and they got whatever a saver is called now a days. They paid less than me for a public ticket even though mine is discounted. Does that mean I would get a seat over them because mine was more expensive or they do because it was cheaper but none discounted?
     
  21. bb21

    bb21 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    22,841
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2010
    Have we not been through this topic a few times before? You simply cannot draw any meaningful comparison from ticket prices.

    How about someone on a season ticket versus someone on a child ticket? Who gets priority? Which ticket is more expensive?

    How about on a packed Monday morning XC service between Sheffield and York between someone who paid £19.90 for a Sheffield - York Anytime Return and someone who paid £58.50 for a Chesterfield - York Anytime Return ticket? Who has more right to it if one seat suddenly becomes available?
     
  22. Urban Gateline

    Urban Gateline Established Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2011
    I have a simple view that this "seating priority by price" will never work.

    Firstly, it causes arguments, just imagine if someone started asking people what they paid for their ticket, then if it was less than theirs they ask the person to move, it's just patronising and wrong.

    I think staff and priv holders have a hidden obligation to give up seats to fare paying passengers, It's just common sense that you look after the passengers first before yourself.

    I do agree with the sentiment that anyone travelling free (Under 5's or Under 10's on TFL, fare evaders, Staff passes etc) should not be entitled to a seat. Some parents will oppose this and say they don't want their toddler on their lap for the journey, well buy a child ticket then!
     
  23. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,247
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    It isn't hidden, it's in the TnCs of the pass....
     
  24. Urban Gateline

    Urban Gateline Established Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2011
    Undoubtedly, but who actually looks at the T&C's of their staff pass, I doubt many people would!
     
  25. SS4

    SS4 Established Member

    Messages:
    8,391
    Joined:
    30 Jan 2011
    Location:
    Birmingham
    No question, but's that not the point. It is the signatory's responsibility to read the T&Cs before signing the agreement
     
    Last edited: 3 Nov 2011
  26. Urban Gateline

    Urban Gateline Established Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2011
    Completely agreed!
     
  27. jamesst

    jamesst Member

    Messages:
    336
    Joined:
    4 May 2011
    *No,by the same logic seniors travelling free on local passes would have to give up there seats for full fare payers.
    *Priv=no, free staff travel=yes. Although personally id happily give up my seat on a crowded train if someone more in need of it was standing.
    *No. Again personally id love to see pushchairs folded up but that seems to be ranked equivalent to asking for an organ off some people.
     
  28. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    30,528
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Female railcard holders should sit on the laps of male holders of the same type of railcard if seats are in short supply. (Excluding over 60s railcards - we don't want more ambulances attending incidents on trains.)

    On coaches before seat belts there was a rule where under 14s could sit three to a pair of seats. Could something similar apply on trains?
     
  29. harz99

    harz99 Member

    Messages:
    600
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2009
    Not quite correct; that requirement applies to active (serving) staff only, not retirees who have either paid a Priv fare or are travelling free.
     
  30. krisk

    krisk Member

    Messages:
    347
    Joined:
    24 Mar 2011
    If I have bought a ticket priv rate I shall be sitting down regardless.

    End of.
     
  31. MidnightFlyer

    MidnightFlyer Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,786
    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    And therefore break the Terms and Conditions on which you were granted it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page