Quiet Carriage / Coach: restrictions and issues - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[Super Guard]

At least she will have the joy of no conversation or noise now she has to drive everywhere instead of travelling on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) .

[NickB]

I confess that I don't understand the negativity to someone who expects FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to enforce their own rules.  Probably because I've experienced the same couldn't-give-a-damn attitude from train managers myself.

If I took a beer into a football match I'd expect to be challenged. If I smoke in a non smoking area then I expect to be challenged. What is it that people don't get about quiet carriages!?!?  Shut up or move.

(And before anyone gets upset I am not saying its a silent carriage, but both stories above, and my own daily experience relate to prolonged full-volume chatter, which belongs in a non-quiet carriage.)

[trainer]

Nick, it's not her complaint that I have a problem with.  It's the way she is dealing with it, refusing to go through the proper sequence of the procedure and using her 'power' to demand a personal apology without acknowledging there might be another viewpoint.  She might be right or not.  Certainly she's exaggerated some things and that detracts from a possibly legitimate point.  To say I'm never doing business with someone again is the last, not opening, gambit in a discussion, I would have thought.

Just my take on it. 

[broadgage]

If I took a beer into a football match I'd expect to be challenged. If I smoke in a non smoking area then I expect to be challenged. What is it that people don't get about quiet carriages!?!?  Shut up or move.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), the problem is one of degree, absolute silence is clearly unreasonable, but deciding what IS reasonable is open to widely differing views.

By contrast, taking beer into most football matches is totally prohibited and is fairly easy to detect. Imagine the chaos if taking a "modest" amount of beer was permitted !


Likewise smoking is either allowed or prohibited, imaging the arguments if it was allowed but only "in moderation" !

[Super Guard]

Nick - I don't have any argument with the complaint - she should complain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), as the TM^‡(resolve) should have spoken to those in question.

I personally remind them they are sat in a quiet coach and could they please respect the environment they are in.  If the level of noise continues, then I will ask them to relocate to another carriage.  Sometimes people genuinely don't even realise they are sat in one and are quite embarrassed and apologetic when challenged.  One of my colleagues tried to enforce a "silent" coach once and was quickly given all sorts of "human rights" arguments.

Yes it is subjective, but it's also quite easy to judge what is and isn't acceptable, even by just looking at the faces of fellow passengers around.

The journalist has a valid complaint - however the response of never travelling with FGW again over this issue is a little hyperbolic in my personal opinion.

[chuffed]

What about putting decibel monitors in quiet coaches ...a bit like the ones round here that show your speed and then  a visual slow 'down', perhaps FGW^▸ (First Great Western) ones  could show the decibel output and then the visual  message 'pipe down!' if it exceeded an certain level of decibels.

As a ex teacher of 30 years experience, I very quickly established a 'working noise' concept with my classes. As long as I couldn't hear individual words of a conversation, we both found a noise level acceptable to both.. However cupped hands and whispering was very quickly pounced on, as I automatically deemed these to be nefarious in content, whatever the circumstances!.

TM^‡(resolve)'s could monitor the decibel level using the displays and the on board cameras to ascertain just who was making the noise, and take action accordingly. As if they didn't have enough to do ....

[didcotdean]

At one time mobile phone conversations were more distracting than face to face in that people seemed to need to bellow into the phone to make themselves heard. Nowadays people usually get by talking into them at a normal level - but there also seems to have been a subtle increase in the noise level of general conversation too. The exception of course is the silly ring tone which the whole carriage needs to hear 3 times before the person finds his or her phone.

As to the Huffington Post blog I took this initially as a bit of satire as surely someone can't be as self-centred, patronising and rude in real life. If I were wrong in this, I am glad that I no longer have the risk of encountering her.

[Fourbee]

At one time mobile phone conversations were more distracting than face to face in that people seemed to need to bellow into the phone to make themselves heard. Nowadays people usually get by talking into them at a normal level - but there also seems to have been a subtle increase in the noise level of general conversation too. The exception of course is the silly ring tone which the whole carriage needs to hear 3 times before the person finds his or her phone.

Agree about the ringtone element. Mobile phone conversations tend to be annoying compared to normal conversations because I think it stems around not being able to hear the other participant.

Counter-intuitively I think someone putting their call on loudspeaker (at a reasonable volume) would be less irritating.

[trainer]

[quote author=didcotdean link=topic=1513.msg138987#msg138987 date=1378118363
Counter-intuitively I think someone putting their call on loudspeaker (at a reasonable volume) would be less irritating.

And if it was especially confidential (like the one a young lady had sitting next to me and kept saying 'I can't tell you' until persuaded to tell her friend and the whole carriage the name of the actor who had visited her office to discuss a contract) you have excellent grounds to start a blackmail conversation about how far they want the conversation to go.

(Lest there be any doubt: this intended as an ironic, humorous post, not an invitation to break the law)

[grahame]

The journalist has a valid complaint - however the response of never travelling with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) again over this issue is a little hyperbolic in my personal opinion.

If the FGW train is the best / most practical way for her to get from Bristol to London and she's not going to use it any more [because of ****], she's the one who will suffer the consequences.   Don't expect the remaining passengers on the 13:30 to be so saddened at her loss that they give up the train too, nor should  you expect FGW to shed too many tears, I'm afraid, Bidisha.

The public comments added on the Huffington Post site make interesting reading.

[Brucey]

I had an excellent experience this morning.  I was on a semi-fast Metropolitan Line service, so we didn't stop between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Finchley Road, which takes about 7 minutes.  A rather tired commuter falls asleep with her phone still in her hand.  It rings, loudest possible setting with the generic "traditional telephone" ringtone, the really annoying one.  We all look round for the culprit.  She is asleep, but still gets the "annoyed commuter evil face".  The call obviously goes to voicemail after what feels like an eternity and we can all relax.  Then it rings again.  This time a fellow commuter decides to answer it with "can you please telling your f***ing friend to switch off her f***ing phone when she is asleep on the train".  He then hangs up and very calmly places it back in her hand.  None the wiser, she wakes up and leaves the train at Baker Street*, possibly wondering why everyone is staring and giggling at her.

* = Can anyone tell me how people manage to do this because once I'm asleep, there's no chance I'm getting off at the right stop

Of course, with my moderator hat on, I don't condone any behaviour of this kind.

[grahame]

I'm seated in quiet on a cross-country train.    Bloke and blokess opposite talking loudly and playing a game on a tablet with the volume right up.  Thinking about it, that's not actually breaking the rules, is it?

[trainer]

...that's not actually breaking the rules, is it?

Possibly breaking the spirit of the purpose of the quiet coach, though.

[bobm]

And Railway Byelaw 7

7. Music, sound, advertising and carrying on a trade
(1) Except with written permission from an Operator no person on the railway shall, to the annoyance of any person:
(i) sing; or
(ii) use any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.

..but that opens a whole new discussion....

[thetrout]

I think the more and more you read the NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) the more you realise how much you break it every time you catch a train...

Some rules contradict what staff tell you to do. Others are perhaps me reading too literally into it with an Autistic head on.

My favorite 'literal rule taking' years ago back in the days of NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) was when I was asked to alight from a train at Reading. I complied with the instruction. Which was completely different from get off and stay off... Needless to say I don't need to tell you what I did when I looked for another train to Taunton.................