Not only are conditions of safety absent from many stations,
however, but a still larger number are comfortless and in-
convenient. Sir Francis Peek, in the letter to the Times already
quoted, appeals " for help on behalf of the long-suffering resi-
dents in the south of London, who day by day are exposed
not only to great discomfort, but often to physical danger,
through the failure of the Railway Companies to carry out the
moral, if not legal, obligation of supplying proper station
accommodation, as well as a sufficiency of decent carriages
and reasonable facilities for the convenience of the districts
over which Parliament has granted them a monopoly. The
three chief offenders are undoubtedly the London, Chat-
ham and Dover Railway, the London and South-Westem
Railway, and the South-Eastern Railway. On the first, the
two nearest stations to my residence supply a large and
populous district, and the platforms are often crowded, yet the
only stations provided are wooden sheds, put up about thirty
years ago for temporary purposes." ^

There are a large number of minor causes for legitimate

1 Feb. 5, 1892.
THE PLAINT OF THE PASSENGERS 87

complaint, which are as vexatious as they are absurd. The
brief limit of time for which tickets are available, the refusal
to permit journeys to be broken, the objection to transferring
return halves of tickets, the refusal to treat bicycles and
bassinettes as passengers' luggage, and the ridiculous charges
made for them; and the petty restrictions placed upon the
issue of tickets for parties, and athletic clubs, and schools.
All these and many others are really quite trivial, but they
are all so needless, and yet so exasperating, that there is neither
rhyme nor reason for their continuance under a properly
organized railway system.
