Virgin Trains QuietZone What is the point?

JReacher1

The fundamental problem is that fellow commuters can often be terribly inconsiderate people.

The only way to 100% guarantee peace and quiet when you are commuting is to invest in a pair of decent noise cancelling headphones.

On the OP's example it sounds like they didn't do anything until they finished the journey. If they had complained during the journey something could have been done but after the journey nothing can be done. In addition the quiet coach is the same price of a normal journey so there is nothing that can be refunded.

All in all its just a bit of a kick in the teeth!

daytona0

giraffe69 wrote: »

Better (marginally) to listen to loud music than people preaching about how "disgusting" it is to use an aircraft. Personally I think walking the hills and dales in sandals with thick walking socks and a stout stick is the only way to travel, so carbon friendly.

The only thing I'm going to say is that for every person who has some slight amount of respect for the environment (choosing to travel by train or coach as apposed to plane for a relatively short distance, not being affected by the noise) there will be about 50 people queuing up at Heathrow ready to fly out. Then you have the odd person like yourself who talks about walking the hills and dales, which is very hippy-like and very commendable!

Our priorities are way off sometimes... It may be our demise one day, although we may be but ash in the ground when that time arrives. I think that is why most people don't really care about anything other than a bit of noise on the journey home. Sad state of affairs sometimes.

worbikeman

wealdroam wrote: »

What payment? No extra was charged for the quiet coach.



And they agree with you. Read the link in post#2.



What money would you want back?
If you bought a ticket and were conveyed from A to B, I cannot see that you have suffered any financial loss.

If the OP bought a ticket it was on the basis of it being in a quiet carriage, as described in the ticket details. If you pay for an apple and you get a banana you want your money back on the grounds that you paid for an apple but didnt get an apple. You got a banana.

daytona0 wrote: »

Well, my post really wasn't about enforcing the 'quiet zone' principle (it was a minor point) but more about how OP choosing to fly next time is silly.

I'm not too far away from agreeing with your point, but there are some obstacles:

1. Nobody has provided details on Virgin's official policy with the 'quiet zone' - maybe it is just a recommendation?

No it isnt. Otherwise why mention it as a selling point? Because selling a ticket in a quiet coach with the proviso that other passengers have the right to make as much noise as they like isnt really a selling point is it?

2. Define 'not quiet'. Does a cough qualify? How about a squeaky chair? Or maybe you're not allowed to eat a packet of crips? This obviously links to point 1.


Alternatively what do you call noisy? Do you wait until your eardrums burst?
Nobody is going to object to a cough or a crisp packet, that would be ridiculous. Anything audible for more than a couple of minutes however is going to constitute a nuisance.

3. Can customers successfully argue discrimination, especially since "not being quiet" could well be a bit subjective?

I love how you "completely agree with the OP" - so you also agree that choosing to fly instead of train (which is not guaranteed to be less noisy!) is sensible, despite the increased CO2 output for the duration of your journey? Straight into the atmosphere at 30,000 ft! I suppose that isn't as bad as those "inconsiderate morons" who make too much of a racket.

No, a choice to use Virgin Trains was made on the basis of their selling a ticket in a quiet carriage. You could choose to fly, drive, or share a car journey or not bother at all. All motorised journeys put out CO2 and the plane will fly whether the OP is on it or not.

I'm not big on environmental issues, but people need to show some level of respect! There is only one "inconsiderate moron" around here (unless you want to include yourself along with OP? I don't think you have agreed to such an extent with OP, but you never know!)

How am I the inconsiderate moron? I am agreeing with the OP that having paid for a ticket in a quiet coach he is entitled to a quiet coach. And anyone who makes a noise in that coach is an inconsiderate moron. Probably the type who throw litter and put their feet on the seats.

DKLS

daytona0 wrote: »

Not being funny, but "sticking to flying" is absolutely disgusting. If you are doing a 5 hour Virgin train then you must have been going to Scotland. A flight from London to Scotland is sooo uneconomical in comparison to trains and possibly the coach too.

Not being funny, but what a load of judgemental rubbish.

If you checked the options you would find that its often cheaper to fly than get the train, plus the flights are less than an hour, rather than a 5 hour trip on the train or even worse 8+ hours on a coach.

daytona0

worbikeman wrote: »

How am I the inconsiderate moron? I am agreeing with the OP that having paid for a ticket in a quiet coach he is entitled to a quiet coach. And anyone who makes a noise in that coach is an inconsiderate moron. Probably the type who throw litter and put their feet on the seats.

Well, I did initially say that you were free to class yourself as an inconsiderate moron (As apposed to calling you one) along with OP, for "agreeing completely with OP" (though I wasn't sure to what extent you agreed with it, so I didn't outright call you one).

I think this post sums it up.

1. I'm actually nearly in agreement with you, and you haven't acknowledged that.

2. I asked for information on Virgin's official policies and got none. Without this, we do not know to what extent we would expect the quiet zone to be enforced. It can be anywhere between a polite suggestion to a strict rule.

3. Different people will tolerate different levels of noise. So you have the added problem of offering a standardised service across all trains, which isn't discriminating. I just want to know what the criteria is?

4. You FINALLY acknowledged the real point of my posts! I'm not too fussed about the "quiet zone" issue because I'm not disagreeing with you strongly, I'm just raising a few points which need addressing regarding that. Back to the CO2 issue, but when you say "and the plane will fly whether the OP is on it or not." that sums it all up! A sort of "well, everyone else is doing it so I might as well do it too" attitude. A plane WILL NOT fly if there is no demand for it to fly! That only happens when OP, you and a good number of other people stop flying when they can travel in a more economically friendly manner. That is where you creep into 'ignorant' territory I'm afraid.

5. The comment "Probably the type who throw litter and put their feet on the seats." is just really bad. You are saying that to someone who is expressing concern towards the environment. How stupid is that? You'll back up OP for choosing to fly from London to Scotland instead of taking the train (which is more environmentally friendly), but you'll insult someone who shows some concern towards the environment?

That is bad form lad.

daytona0

DKLS wrote: »

Not being funny, but what a load of judgemental rubbish.

If you checked the options you would find that its often cheaper to fly than get the train, plus the flights are less than an hour, rather than a 5 hour trip on the train or even worse 8+ hours on a coach.

Not being funny, but you haven't read my post.

By choosing to fly as apposed to taking the train you:

1. Do not guarantee it being quieter

2. Travel in a very economically unfriendly manner (considering the short distance)

3. Do not guarantee it being quicker, because you have check in/out and waiting time and luggage pickup which may bump up the time a bit.

Of course, the only important point is the second one.

Azari

daytona0 wrote: »

2. Travel in a very economically unfriendly manner (considering the short distance)

Did you mean environmentally?

Of course, it can be economically unfriendly as well, but I don't think that was the crux of youy argument.

welshbookworm

The plane may have to fly whether it is full or empty to be at the next 'pick up point'

daytona0

Azari wrote: »

Did you mean environmentally?

Of course, it can be economically unfriendly as well, but I don't think that was the crux of youy argument.

Haha, yes my mistake

daytona0

welshbookworm wrote: »

The plane may have to fly whether it is full or empty to be at the next 'pick up point'

Ah ok, that's a fair point. Still, your use of the word "may" is about right and also if there is no demand for such flights then there might not be any supply of those flights.

Maybe, also, if people take on board the pollution issue with a similar amount of passion as they display with the "noise in quiet zone" issue, then maybe we could make some meaningful changes in the world.