In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:25*pm, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 12, 9:15*pm, wrote:

(Paul Corfield) wrote:

God help us if First retain FCC or worse gain the Crossrail
franchise.

I can think of worse. National Express, for example.

That's because you're a Great Northern man, not a Thameslink, er,
victim.

I thought Thameslink was rather better now (from the TGOC end, not the
works, obviously).

s/TGOC/TOC/ BTW

Er, well I think it recovered back to how bad it used to be after the
(no-) driver crisis eventually ended, but it might be teetering on the
precipice again.

OK. I rarely travel on that line. When I have done so I've not been let
down, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 04:16:16
on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, remarked:

The original reference was to distance of hotels from King's Cross. If I
was leaving Putney to catch a train at King' Cross, I wouldn't rely on
catching it if I allowed as little as 45 minutes.

But you aren't leaving Cambridge Station, rather than somewhere in
Cambridge (even relatively close like Newnham Croft probably requires 20
minute allowance). Then there's betting the ranch on it actually taking
45 minutes, or not being cancelled. Frankly, you are much better off
starting in Putney.
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 13, 10:16*am, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:25*pm, wrote:

I thought Thameslink was rather better now (from the [TOC] end, not
the works, obviously).

Er, well I think it recovered back to how bad it used to be after the
(no-) driver crisis eventually ended, but it might be teetering on the
precipice again.

OK. I rarely travel on that line. When I have done so I've not been let
down, though.

It's peak times when I think it really exhibits its potential to turn
to porridge, I think. Not used it so much lately myself though. But
yes, when it's working, it can be fantastic. (Well, perhaps that's a
bit OTT! - how about 'very useful'.)

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:16:16 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, remarked:

The original reference was to distance of hotels from King's Cross. If
I was leaving Putney to catch a train at King' Cross, I wouldn't rely
on catching it if I allowed as little as 45 minutes.

But you aren't leaving Cambridge Station, rather than somewhere in
Cambridge (even relatively close like Newnham Croft probably
requires 20 minute allowance). Then there's betting the ranch on it
actually taking 45 minutes, or not being cancelled. Frankly, you
are much better off starting in Putney.

No, you're missing the point, which was to have a hotel near King's Cross.
Within 45 minutes that includes Cambridge (as long as you choose one of
the several establishments close to the station of course).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Returning to the original question,

IIMU that Thameslink and the other national rail lines were removed
from the tube map prior to initial Oyster implementation when they
were then only valid on tube lines i.e. to not confuse customers. No
more deeper reason than that.

Obviously now Oyster on national rail there is maybe a case for
reinstating those it, and GNcity etc. However, there was a more recent
thing about 2 years ago of TfL trying to simplify the tube map to tube
lines only - remember the hue and cry when the Thames was removed form
it. Again IIMU the idea now is the tube map with Overground is just
that, a tube map but with Overground, and anything else goes on the
London connections map, or Oyster map, or however you want to look at
it.

I suggest the current broken Thameslink is a not really the driving
force behind it as that don;lt explain the loss of GNcity.

Also I think there is a ''were do you draw the line'' argument here.
TL is a cross city route yes, but you can also its paralleled by tube
liens so is it necessary to show it ? If so, why not also high
frequency parallels Liverpool St Stratford, CX-LB, and then it goes
on, at CJ is on the Overground, why not add in CJ to Waterloo, and CJ
to Victoria. If you do that, you then say, well why not CJ Wimbledon,
CJ Croydon, but then both those connect with the south bit of current
TL, so add that, and so on and on and on.

IMHO SPILL Farringdon City Blackfriars should appear on tube maps, but
no more, as its now 10 TPH off peak frequency SX and SO.

But doubtless others will argue differently.

--
Nick

In message , at 08:14:55
on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, remarked:
The original reference was to distance of hotels from King's Cross. If
I was leaving Putney to catch a train at King' Cross, I wouldn't rely
on catching it if I allowed as little as 45 minutes.

But you aren't leaving Cambridge Station, rather than somewhere in
Cambridge (even relatively close like Newnham Croft probably
requires 20 minute allowance). Then there's betting the ranch on it
actually taking 45 minutes, or not being cancelled. Frankly, you
are much better off starting in Putney.

No, you're missing the point, which was to have a hotel near King's Cross.
Within 45 minutes that includes Cambridge (as long as you choose one of
the several establishments close to the station of course).

Maybe it's changed, but I don't remember that many hotels near the
station (apart from the Lego motel). The B&B's near the station were
universally gruesome.

I'd still recommend a hotel in Putney (or actually docklands) over one
in Cambridge if you want to get to Kings Cross reliably.
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 13, 6:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
Returning to the original question,

IIMU that Thameslink and the other national rail lines were removed
from the tube map prior to initial Oyster implementation when they
were then only valid on tube lines i.e. to not confuse customers. No
more deeper reason than that.
[snip]

Sorry, that's just wrong, as the central section of Thameslink that
once featured on Tube maps - Kentish Town to Elephant & Castle/ London
Bridge - accepted Oyster PAYG from day one (as it had ticketing inter-
availability with LU - that is, LU tickets were and indeed are
accepted on this section as if it is just another Tube line).

Likewise the Great Northern/ Northern City line between Moorgate and
Finsbury Park accepted Oyster PAYG from day one as well.

I'm 100% about this (if I tried I could dig up some old TfL fare
guides PDFs that would provide confirmation - but haven't got time
now).

There is a webpage called the 'Tube Map Archives# that does just that,
it is however only a very partial collection, and in this case it
doesn't help at all as it shows two maps from 1999, one with and one
without the central section of Thameslink on it - see:
http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html

Also worth bearing in mind that AIUI there are different versions of
the map produced for different purposes (e.g. the classic folded card
map, posters and leaflets might have different versions, sometimes
just subtly different).

(When using Thameslink at London Bridge there was an odd arrangement
whereby you had to touch-out or in on standalone validators located on
the platforms used by Thameslink - the Oyster pads on the gates at
London Bridge did not accept or validate Oyster PAYG, instead one had
to explain to the gateline staff that you were using Oyster PAYG on
Thameslink - I'm serious, and I posted about it several times in the
past. Thankfully the number of people using Oyster PAYG who'd be
wanting to enter London Bridge mainline station to catch a Thameslink
train northbound but only as far as Kentish Town - later extended to
West Hampstead - was not that great, and now Oyster PAYG is accepted
across NR this strange situation has disappeared.)

On Aug 13, 7:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Sorry, that's just wrong, as the central section of Thameslink that
once featured on Tube maps - Kentish Town to Elephant & Castle/ London
Bridge - accepted Oyster PAYG from day one (as it had ticketing inter-
availability with LU - that is, LU tickets were and indeed are
accepted on this section as if it is just another Tube line).


I am aware of that ...

.... but the average member of public that needs a map does not.

Those who have enough detailed knowledge about Oysters when they were
nominally LU only don't need a map to know of the Elephant - Kentish
etc allowance.

Remember we are ''anoraks'' here we know these rules, and specialise
in knowing the exceptions to every rule.

My point was, and I still think it was true as the underlying reason,
was to remove confusion from the majority of those who need to consult
a map,




I now l have issues using Thameslink at London Bridge with my Oyster
that have come in *after* implementation on NR.

I have an LU staff Oyster. These are nominally LU[*] only with no
general NR validity (you cannot put money on them like a public
Oyster) but have ''legacy BR'' add-ons like Liverpool Street -
Stratford, Euston - Watford Junction ALL services not just Overground,
others, and, of course E&C to Kent.Town.

Gate line staff on SN side at LB refuse point blank to open the gates.
they simply treat it as a non valid Oyster

Gate staff on 1-6 do open the gates after discussion but they don't
seem happy about it.

No doubt I shall have to miss a train one day so to fire off a ''Dear
Sir'' at them before they do anything about it.

[*] and buses and trams but not relevant here

--
Nick

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:07:58 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

Sorry, that's just wrong, as the central section of Thameslink that
once featured on Tube maps - Kentish Town to Elephant & Castle/ London
Bridge - accepted Oyster PAYG from day one (as it had ticketing inter-
availability with LU - that is, LU tickets were and indeed are
accepted on this section as if it is just another Tube line).


I am aware of that ...

... but the average member of public that needs a map does not.

I've had a PAYG Oyster from its inception and I didn't know that (not
that it would have been much use to me).

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
08:14:55 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, remarked:
The original reference was to distance of hotels from King's Cross.
If I was leaving Putney to catch a train at King' Cross, I wouldn't
rely on catching it if I allowed as little as 45 minutes.

But you aren't leaving Cambridge Station, rather than somewhere in
Cambridge (even relatively close like Newnham Croft probably
requires 20 minute allowance). Then there's betting the ranch on it
actually taking 45 minutes, or not being cancelled. Frankly, you
are much better off starting in Putney.

No, you're missing the point, which was to have a hotel near King's
Cross. Within 45 minutes that includes Cambridge (as long as you
choose one of the several establishments close to the station of
course).

Maybe it's changed, but I don't remember that many hotels near the
station (apart from the Lego motel). The B&B's near the station
were universally gruesome.

It's changed, with more change to come, right next to the station.

I'd still recommend a hotel in Putney (or actually docklands) over
one in Cambridge if you want to get to Kings Cross reliably.

I tend to agree, mainly because the fares to Putney are rather less than
to Cambridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel