On 18 Dec, 11:54, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:45:37 -0000

"Recliner" wrote:

The flat junction at Farringdon would not allow the increase in
frequency on the Thameslink line.

Of course it would. How long does a train take to traverse it - 20 seconds?
That was just another excuse they came up with to justify closing the branch.


A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:45:36 -0800 (PST)
contrex wrote:
On 18 Dec, 11:54, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:45:37 -0000

"Recliner" wrote:

The flat junction at Farringdon would not allow the increase in
frequency on the Thameslink line.

Of course it would. How long does a train take to traverse it - 20 seconds?
That was just another excuse they came up with to justify closing the branch.


A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

Oh , nicely argued. A train from moorgate would take up a slot from a
train going north from city thameslink just like it does at the moment.
Since most people on Thameslink use it to get to and from the City rather
than traversing the capital this is not and has never been an issue until
they decided to make it one.

B2003

In message , at 14:13:21 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
d remarked:
A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

Oh , nicely argued. A train from moorgate would take up a slot from a
train going north from city thameslink just like it does at the moment.

But it would also take a slot for a southbound train. Flat junctions do
that.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:27:30 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:13:21 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
remarked:
A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

Oh , nicely argued. A train from moorgate would take up a slot from a
train going north from city thameslink just like it does at the moment.

But it would also take a slot for a southbound train. Flat junctions do
that.

Funnily enough they also allow a train to go to moorgate instead of
southbound. Or did you think there was a train factory at moorgate churning
out one every 30 mins to go north?

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink but
obviously that means little to the planners who just want a shiny new
timetable and to save some maintenance costs and stuff the real needs of the
passengers.

B2003

In message , at 14:58:08 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
d remarked:

A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

Oh , nicely argued. A train from moorgate would take up a slot from a
train going north from city thameslink just like it does at the moment.

But it would also take a slot for a southbound train. Flat junctions do
that.

Funnily enough they also allow a train to go to moorgate instead of
southbound. Or did you think there was a train factory at moorgate churning
out one every 30 mins to go north?

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

--
Roland Perry

On 18 Dec, 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.


Game set & match to you, Roland, I think.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:31:28 -0800 (PST), contrex wrote:

On 18 Dec, 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

Game set & match to you, Roland, I think.

Not really - he was trolled and therefore lost. In doing so he also
made some of us see the post he was responding to.

On Dec 18, 3:38*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

Actually they did do that at Farringdon, and this is no more than the
sort of detailed timetabling that has to go into the planning of every
single location where there are conflicts.

Parallel running they call it - how do you think locations like
Borough Market Junction work without it.

Not delivered in practice to the nearest microsecond no, but delivered
it is and it works.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

Moorgate trains were full enough to justify their existence.

I used them as often as I possibly could to get to and from that area
- and did so ever since I moved to Luton 20+ years ago.

--
Nick

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:38:58 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

Well if a timetable goes to pot then all bets are off anyway.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

From my own personal experience I'd say only 5% of Thameslink passengers
use it as a through route. The rest use it as just another way to get into
central london or in my case to shuttle between KX and Blackfriars. Southbound
trains leaving Blackfriars were virtually empty in the morning rush hour.

B2003

In message , at 20:38:48 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
d remarked:

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

From my own personal experience I'd say only 5% of Thameslink passengers
use it as a through route.

And the new routes?
--
Roland Perry