On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond.