Great Western Coffee Shop

Just seen this on the BBC news site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249

Basssiclly one one of the labour leader candidates is considering introducing women only carriages on some train services...curious to know what other members think about this :)

Will work as well as the (un-policed) quiet carriages. Ie it won't

Maybe on the HST services they could use the remaining first class coach (only joking!)

...........I didn't realise Corbyn was now getting policy ideas from the Taliban?

Not a new idea - harking back to olden times (I remember seeing the last few women only compartments on the 4 SUB units in my youth / Beckenham Junction to Crystal Palace journeys) and the TV program last night "World's busiest railway" was showing them in Mumbai to this day.

Logic suggests that for equality reasons you should also have men only carriages.

When I posted this something in my memory told me this had been done before but got distracted by a cup of coffee before I could google

What a ridiculous idea!! I am a woman and travel on the trains on my own at all times of day and night and have never had any problems.
As ChrisB said the quiet carriages are anything but (I have seen controllers go past people on phones there and not say anything!! Had visitors over from Australia who were amazed at the level of noise in the 'quiet' carriage - even talking is not permitted in quiet carriages in Sydney).

Rather than separating the sexes, how's about going back to teaching respect for each other and good manners?

Surprised he had the time to think of this while considering important proposals such as leaving NATO...

Paul

not a supporter of women only carriage, but on problem trains, perhaps the solution would be to have a security guard in one coach and encourage anyone of either sex who felt vulnerable to travel there. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11825131/Jeremy-Corbyn-women-only-trains-When-I-was-groped-men-stepped-in.html

As described in this article, having other men around can actually be more beneficial to women (or other men). Just because it's a 'woman only' carriage, it wouldn't stop a man from actually entering.

Ridiculous idea if you ask me.

Yes - advocates of women-only carriages seem to be suggesting that sexual assaults must always involve a male aggressor and a female victim, but this is not the case: according to this Guardian article from 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/11/male-female-rape-statistics-graphic) nearly 1 in 8 victims were male in the period 2009-2012.

Didn't know this had been done in UK in the past. Certainly it's standard practice in India and some other countries. They also have one half of the bus reserved for women (and children). How effective it is, I don't know. Certainly it doesn't seem to have done much to improve the general position of women in India.

That's for pure sexism reasons there....females are the underclass

Theoretically it's one of several similar reservations (reserved seats for women on state councils, reserved college places and government jobs for "backward castes" and certain ethnic groups) aimed at ending the underclass situation, in addition to being intended to make women safer on buses and trains.

Are you referring to India or the UK with that post?

Here's an alternative - http://newsthump.com/2015/08/26/commuters-suggest-tosspots-only-carriage/

So what happens when a train has a male guard working on it - presumably they won't be allowed to ticket check in the women only carriage?

They will probably put a sign up saying "this carriage is serviced by male and female train managers" similar to the ones they find in public loos :)

And the usual acerbic take on things from The Daily Mash

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/rail-companies-unveil-women-only-rip-offs-20150827101514 (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/rail-companies-unveil-women-only-rip-offs-20150827101514)

I think Jeremy Corbyn needs to get out more, he's obviously never seen a class 153 running alone. ;D

In that case trains would need to be at least 3-car (male carriage, female carriage and carriage for mixed-sex groups travelling together). Of course if you're serious about the sugesstion it would presumably only be implemented on long trains (as quiet carriages are currently) and therefore some areas would see very few, if any, services with the gender-specific carriages.

I think people need to read what he actually said rather than whatever spin the media have put on it.


Merely responding to concerns raised and floating the idea of consultation. About as far from actually stating a policy as you can get. Well done to those here who jumped on the outrage bus without looking at what Mr Corbyn said.  ::)

Incidentally, rail minister Claire Perry made similar noises at the Conservative Party conference last September. She also floated the idea of women only carriages. Following the opprobrium levelled at Jeremy Corbyn she has performed something of a u-turn. Funny how she isn't being attacked as sexist, out of touch, hair-brained...

The worst criticism I can level at Jeremy Corbyn is he has taken a government minister's idea and run with it.

That was intended as a 'lighter side' comment, hence the smiley.

Oh, that's what Corbyn actually said? The media really are being misleading if that's the case.

I think people need to see smileys & realise they usually mean "Tongue in Cheek" or similar.

Similar to what other posters have said, It would work as well as Quiet Carriages and First Class on late evening services... I.e. A waste of time.

Having said that, the perhaps more logical and far easier to implement solution is having more BTP on trains themselves and at known crime hotspots. In Spain on Renfe Cercan^as Services (Local Trains) the trains always have some travelling Security Guards (Certainly true for all of the trains I've used). I remember my first journey being quite intimidated by it; but also felt reassured that anyone thinking of causing trouble would be thinking again...

Are you happy for fares to rise to provide for more BTP offices? Coz it's the TOCs that pay for them directly, not the taxpayers

That's difficult to answer if I'm honest. I think I just accept that the fares are going to go up regardless of what happens.

In respect of the TOCs paying more ^ for more officers; It could be considered that if a higher presence reduced the amount of Antisocial Behaviour incidents, Increased passenger numbers by giving an impression of a "much safer railway", reduced the bill of repairs from criminal damage, reduces the likelihood of the "chancer" fare evaders and so on and so fourth...

Then throw into the mix that more officers meant less strain on NHS resources, less strain on Network Rail from the likes of Cable Theft etc...

It's a tricky one to get a good balance. I am loathed to say this, but if that is the case then sadly it's for the TOC to decide whether it wants to put profits before passenger welfare.

oh, they definitely do juggle their shifts from time to time to get them where they're needed - but if you're saying more are needed, they'll either be juggling them out of where they work now or need to spend more to increase numbers.

It is a hard one - and I don't think more being seen will increase pax numbers, especially late night

Presumably they'd all have to have facilities for the disabled too? Unless that will be yet another carriage?

A friend I was with when this was hitting the TV news this week, said she would like this to actually happen in some parts of the country. She said she had felt very uncomfortable in some trains in the London area.

On the other hand having a woman only carriage is an advert to the rapist, mugger etc.

 

Taxpayers do pay though. Network Rail are the largest individual contributor to BTP funding.

He probably does get out and all around his constituency - on foot. Of Islington North:

At 735 hectares (1,820 acres), it is the smallest UK Parliamentary constituency

I make that about 1.7 miles by 1.7 miles!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34061094


But a serious issue with occupancy: