Print Page - Is the passenger to seat ratio a fair measure of overcrowding?

From the Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scotrail-trains-carrying-twice-as-many-passengers-as-seats-1-3974390) this morning

Quote

ScotRail trains 'carrying twice as many passengers as seats'

The 08:29 from Milngavie to Edinburgh is ScotRail^s busiest service, with 380 passengers crammed onto the 183-seat train between Westerton and Glasgow Queen Street.

That's 2.076 passengers per seat.

The design for the trains used for journeys from London to Amersham is 280 seats, but total capacity of 865 (see [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_rolling_stock))- that's 3.089 passengers per seat.

The distance from Milngavie to Glasgow in 7.2 miles, and from Amersham to London is 27.9 miles (both according to Google)

Of course, the ratio makes an excellent headline, but it's not the only factor. I took a very similar picture to that in the Scotsman's article yesterday (yes, Saturday) looking - if anything - worse. Luckily, everyone managed to get on because the next train wasn't coming along for two hours (or, rather, the same train wouldn't come round again in its cycle for two hours :D )

Quote from: grahame on December 13, 2015, 09:43:24

The distance from Milngavie to Glasgow in 7.2 miles, and from Amersham to London is 27.9 miles (both according to Google)
...
Luckily, everyone managed to get on because the next train wasn't coming along for two hours (or, rather, the same train wouldn't come round again in its cycle for two hours :D )

Possibly quicker to cycle, then? ::) :P ;D

Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom => Topic started by: grahame on December 13, 2015, 09:43:24