Great Western Coffee Shop

After travelling on a full and standing 150/2 yesterday, I was dismayed to see two "larger" people taking up four seats between them (i.e. two each).  Two passengers were ultimately having to stand to cater for these people's size.  I was wondering what other people's opinions are on this subject: should they be charged two fares for occupying two seats?

not wishing to offend anyone here, but if they were that big would they not be technically disabled?

I would say yes and I speak as a short fat person

If you were charged for 2 seats on a plane would you get 2 meals?

if someones that size because of their fault through poor dieting exercise then yes perhaps charge them, however how do you know they dont have a medical condition making them so big?
try charging a person with a medical problem you will have big repercussions,

I can see both sides of that argument.
I have gotten too stout to readily fit into some newer standard class seats.
I normally go first class though, especialy on new trains, first class on new trains seems about the same as second class on old ones.

Second class on long distance used to be 2+2 seating, but I noticed that 2+3 had crept in on to Waterloo to Portsmouth, progress I suppose.

First class used to be 2+1, on all but local services, but the new trains from Reading to Waterloo are 2+2 in first.

If fat persons are to be charged for 2 seats, then what about others who have 1 ticket but occupy more than 1 space ?
Babies and young children travell free, but invariably take up at least one seat, perhaps they should pay?

Older children travel at heavily discounted fares, but still expect a seat, perhaps they should pay full fare.


Wheel chairs and baby carriages are conveyed free, but occupy considerable space.
One some trains, including class 319s, tip up seats are provided to facilitate the carrying of wheelchairs and baby carriages, this means that 3 more have to stand. Should 4 tickets therefore be held ?

With people getting larger, and train seats getting smaller and with less legroom, this will be a growing problem.
I could diet to reduce my girth, but I cant do anything about my height, which is only slightly greater than average. Steerage class on a voyager is almost unusable by anyone over 6 foot tall.

In a railway magazine article recently, it was pointed out that a THIRD CLASS coach of 1900 had more legroom than a modern DMU. How is that for 100 years of progress, especialy as people are now taller on average than 100 years ago.

also what if the trains so packed that you have to stand? are you paying for a seat or for travel ?

you pay to travel, getting a seat is a bonus!!

..or just a distant dream  ::) ::) ;D

It's an interesting question...I can see both sides of the argument but I tend to come down on the side of charging someone who occupies two seats for those two seats. At least one major US airline has a "Customers of Size" policy (http://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/extra-seat/index-pol.html) (named with exquisite delicacy I'm sure you'll agree).

Essentially the deal is that if you're too fat to put the armrests down either side of you, you should book an extra seat. If the flight isn't full and the seat isn't required for a paying passenger then you'll be reimbursed the additional fee, but if the flight is full then you do have to pay that fare for the additional seat you need. This is probably more of an issue in the confines of an aircraft where there is much less scope for moving seats.


I find that rather hard to believe, having seen some of the third-class horrors that passengers used to be conveyed in around 1900 - wooden bench seats, no padding, no toliets, no gangways, no heating etc etc! It may be possible to "cherry pick" and identify one particularly generous third-class vehicle from the turn of the century with one particularly cramped modern DMU, but I don't believe for one moment that this is a general, representative trend. I'd bet good money that your typical third-class traveller from 1900 would find riding in a refurbished HST an infinitely preferable experience!

he didnt say about the seats being more comfortable, having toilets etc, just remarked that the 1900 had more legroom, you could be sat on rocks and be mega uncomfortable but have more legroom than a modern dmu

I've said it before but it bears repeating - quite frankly speaking as a Melksham resident I'd be perfectly happy to travel up to Swindon or down to Salisbury standing up in an open topped 3rd Class 1880s cattle truck. All I want is to get a b***** train service back of any description. Comfort quite frankly comes WAY down the list.

^
|

What he said.  :-X

See then I'd drive!  As I am in ireland!

i would happily use pacers for the next 50 years if it ment a rail service for sidmouth

Whilst I understand that some sort of train service is better than none.. I'd prefer not to travel at all rather than be rammed into a train with (just about enough) breathing room.. It's not fun... Hence the car.. and clogging up the roads.. It might be bad stuck in traffic, but (unless you invited lots and lots of fellow passengers with you), you get to breath.. That is quite important to me  :P ::)

I think it ALL needs to be sorted out and properly...It won't be though..

Hmmm ... until 6 months or a year ago, you could have gone from Rosslare to Kilkenny by train, changing at Waterford. But the Rosslare to Waterford service has been withdrawn (it had been minimal) with closure of the intermediate stations. There may be a lesson / warning in this closure that even in these days lines can be lost.

Railways ought to be good at gauging, rating axle loads on a scale RA1-10, clearances on W6a-12, with passenger stock having C1 or C3 ratings.

We could imagine intending passengers also being required to receive corresponding measurements for weight, height and width, with perhaps a dynamic clearance test for the ability to perambulate a straight line after a social evening. The results could be encoded onto a chip embedded into ones photocard/railcard and used to adjust the fare paid. This would also dispense with the need for child fares.

Seats could then be labelled with the relevant maxima.

A daft as chipping dustbins?

OTC

  So what about children under 5 who occupy a seat ?

I feel sorry for the staff in all this. I mean how would you tactfully tell a "large" person they need to pay twice?

 If they were charged for taking up 2 seats and their were 2 of them, could they not have bought a group-save ?

I think that the owners of the child should be made to pay for a seat, if one is occupied.

Smart: :D

________________________________________________________________________________________

A Bit of History here, back in Mid 1950's, BR Mk I open stock was built with,
First Class, 7 window bays and 2 + 1 seating (42 seats),
Third Class 8 window bays and 2 + 2 seating (64 seats), Yeah still 3rd class in them days.
Second Class 8 window bays & 2 + 1 seating (48 seats), Second class was a limited build as 2nd class was ONLY used on trains with 3 classes, IE Boat Trains.

The Second class coaches became second class restaurant cars when third class was abolished.

As a small point "  FIRST  "   Class Window Totems were Blue, (still around on some private lines),
                          "SECOND"  Class Window Totems were Green.

Of course the Pullman Cars then in use had 6 window bays & 1 + 1 seating (you may turn green) ;D ;D ;D

Trying to remember when political correctness changed second class to standard class.

Think it was the mid 80s

 Was that at the same time they abolished the 'ladies only' coaches (or was that just a southern thing) ?

Ladies only COMPARTMENTS were a national thing but were deemed "foul" under Sex discrimnation
so Ladies only disappeared mid 1970's

How long until there is a "fat carriage"? Could eventually happen if you believe all the scare stories about obesity rates rising. Maybe this is where there could be a higher fee for guranteed comfort without perks of first class. No doubt must be the carriage next to the buffet if there is one though  :P

ahh see we all complain about the scrapping of catering on many trains but, perhaps the toc's are going along with prevention is better than a cure.... don't feed us !

Bit late in my case ......   ;D

i think i'm starting.... mind you mine looks more maternal that beer belly that can not be good!

On a related note should fate people be charged more for their clothes, seeing as they use more material or big footed folk more for their shoes?

Remember the row M&S got into when they tried to charge extra for larger sizes in erm ... certain items of ladies apparel?

Fair enough really, more material, more cost...

It's a shame car insurance doesn't work out like this, then I wouldn't have to pay extortionate amounts for being young and male  >:(

That's because young male motorists cost insurers more than young female motorists (per 'customer').

And, incidentally, it's why us sad people aged 'over 50' get reduced motor insurance rates from Saga. It's embarrassing, perhaps, but I'm happy with it!  ;) :D ;D

I got the impression that car insurance is quoted depending on how likely an accident the person being insured is likely to cause.. Rather than their size.. if that is the case.. I think it makes sense.. Not that I, with three children, two of which are boys, am going to gain from any of this...

:-)

Ha ha hope for me yet. Reach the half century this month (god willing!).

But shouldn't car insurance be based on ability? Whilst I agree many young people are rather dangerous on the road, i've seen many older people who I would consider a far far less greater risk than I am on the roads...

So, you are agreeing that you are a greater risk than the oldies then, d_m?  :P

... while giving the benefit of the doubt for a possible typo, there, devon_metro ::) ... see this press release (http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/2011/03/European_Court_of_Justice_gender_ban_is_disappointing_news_for_UK_insurance_customers_says_the_ABI_1.aspx) from the Association of British Insurers:


I happen to know Maggie Craig - she knows what she's talking about.  ;) :D ;D

Whoops  ;D