S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 10/01/2013 22:30, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 10/01/2013 13:29, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:10 +0000
Recliner wrote:
back in 2003 or earlier? And, yes, the PPP was a huge waste of money.

Agreed.

But given where we are now, wouldn't you complain even more if the D
stock wasn't replaced by the S stock in 2016, but by some other new
design of sub-surface stock in 10-15 years time?

I only use the district line once or twice a year so I don't know the
condition of the D stock, but presumably they must've been given a full
service (or whatever its called) when they were refurbished so must be
good for a few years yet. There's stopping LU just buying S stock for the
district in another 10 years other I suppose that their own idiotic
re-inventing the wheel idiology whereby they'd insist on wasting money
retendering for an entirely new design for its own sake rather than
buying a proven one.

The single leaf doors are a major design weakness of the D stock. We should
count ourselves lucky they have lasted longer than the contemporary single
leaf door tube stock, the 83TS which was withdrawn well before it was
life-expired. The two stocks had a lot of common components under the
solebar too.

I thought that the D stock was based more on the 1973 ts?



Not from what I've seen.

83TS was based on the D78.

Presumably both statements are true (as each of these MetCam designs would
have evolved from its predecessor) but apart from the single-leaf doors,
what else did do the D and 83 share?

The 83ts looked like the Tube version of a D78. Even the cabs and
controls looked very similar.

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

And why did the 83 stock fail, while
the D stock has been quite successful?

Space constraints, I think. The 83TS was not a bad train from an
operational perspective, AIUI, but it was not the right train for tube
conditions.







--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 11/01/2013 19:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like
a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by
caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case
when they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put
up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro
system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?


Where there's life there's hope. :-)

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

S7 Stock to Barking
 

wrote:
In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:16:12 +0000, wrote:

The 83ts looked like the Tube version of a D78. Even the cabs and
controls looked very similar.

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

What's the address?

--
jhk

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:50:35 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:42:55 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:16:12 +0000, wrote:

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

What's the address?

A Google search, which took seconds, found this.

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/

Thanks :)

That did not show up on the first three pages when I searched.

--
jhk

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message
,
Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to
another line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the
mechanical reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

Hardly!

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

Possible.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

That last issue would preclude the use of any tube stock on the Island in
future, wouldn't it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

S7 Stock to Barking
 

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message
,
Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to
another line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the
mechanical reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

Hardly!

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

Possible.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

That last issue would preclude the use of any tube stock on the Island in
future, wouldn't it?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In message , at 19:49:50 on Fri, 11 Jan
2013, d remarked:
If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html

The main reason why UK (and TfL) fares are more is because we don't
subsidise them as much as most other places.
--
Roland Perry

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article

,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

,
Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to
another line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the
mechanical reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

Hardly!

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

Possible.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

That last issue would preclude the use of any tube stock on the
Island in future, wouldn't it?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

The bogies, wheels, axles and traction motors? Not to mention equipment
mounted on the underframe?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

S7 Stock to Barking
 

wrote:
In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:01 -0600,
wrote:

In article

,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In message

,
Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to
another line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the
mechanical reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.

I suppose I should have asked why they didn't go to the Isle of Wight.
They're only 45 years younger than the present trains there.

I don't know for sure, but here's some possibilities:
- The existing 38 stock wasn't worn out, and doesn't do many miles a
year, so why replace it prematurely. After all, 'new' secondhand Tube
stock is bound to become available every few years.

Hardly!

- The 83 stock had acquired a reputation as problematic and was best
avoided.

Possible.

- The mixed Aluminium/Steel construction is a corrosion risk in very
salty conditions.

That last issue would preclude the use of any tube stock on the
Island in future, wouldn't it?

No, light weight modern trains tend to be aluminium monocoques.

The bogies, wheels, axles and traction motors? Not to mention equipment
mounted on the underframe?

The problem arises when the metals are in very close proximity (ie, more or
less touching), so most of those bits of steel aren't a problem.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 12/01/2013 11:03, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an
Ealing Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

And why weren't they offered to the Isle of Wight?

Presumably they were.


So, what was the problem?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 12/01/2013 14:50, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:42:55 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:16:12 +0000, wrote:

The 83ts looked like the Tube version of a D78. Even the cabs and
controls looked very similar.

Some pictures to demonstrate this can be seen on Square Wheels.

What's the address?

A Google search, which took seconds, found this.

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/


If anybody cares to see some video of the 83ts on a tour and in revenue
service, then feel free to look here.

http://youtu.be/jE-Poj9zhnE

http://youtu.be/e5Njmn1BG_0



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

Why? They would have had adequate capacity for that branch, which loads
less heavily than the Heathrow branch.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

Roland Perry wrote:

The main reason why UK (and TfL) fares are more is because we don't
subsidise them as much as most other places.

That's not what Christian Wolmar thinks: see
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/201...ice-for-fares/

His figures from 2007 statistics:
UK EUR 0.125 per passenger km
France EUR 0.113
Germany EUR 0.105
--
Jeremy Double

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In message , Recliner
wrote:
It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Hmm, perhaps I'm misremembering and it was Uxbridge/Rayners Lane to High
Street Ken.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 12/01/2013 20:23, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

Why? They would have had adequate capacity for that branch, which loads
less heavily than the Heathrow branch.


What about in the middle of London, however? I would also imagine that
people commute into town from Rayners Lane or Uxbridge.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 20:23, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

Why? They would have had adequate capacity for that branch, which loads
less heavily than the Heathrow branch.


What about in the middle of London, however? I would also imagine that
people commute into town from Rayners Lane or Uxbridge.

It would have followed the normal Picc line east of Acton Town. As far as
pax were concerned, it would all have been the ordinary Piccadilly Line,
but with the 1983 stock normally confined to the Rayners Lane/Uxbridge
route. Some trains from Rayners Lane might have reversed at Acton Town,
thus giving extra frequency on the branch, without overloading the central
London section. It was all just an idea to boost the Piccadilly line fleet,
now that the Heathrow branch has become so busy.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 12/01/2013 22:47, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 20:23, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:09:01 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In message

, Recliner wrote:
The 83 stock was designed for the original Jubilee Line,
[...]
But why was the stock simply scrapped, rather than cascaded to another
line, as had been suggested at the time? I thought the mechanical
reliability was a factor.

It may have been, but I believe one reason was that there wasn't
anywhere that it made sense to use it. There was some talk of an Ealing
Broadway to High Street Ken service, but it fell through.

I thought they'd also been considered as a way of boosting the Picc
fleet, running on the Rayners Lane branch, rather than the
luggage-intensive Heathrow route.

Again, though, wouldn't that have presented a problem in tub conditions?

Why? They would have had adequate capacity for that branch, which loads
less heavily than the Heathrow branch.


What about in the middle of London, however? I would also imagine that
people commute into town from Rayners Lane or Uxbridge.

It would have followed the normal Picc line east of Acton Town. As far as
pax were concerned, it would all have been the ordinary Piccadilly Line,
but with the 1983 stock normally confined to the Rayners Lane/Uxbridge
route. Some trains from Rayners Lane might have reversed at Acton Town,
thus giving extra frequency on the branch, without overloading the central
London section. It was all just an idea to boost the Piccadilly line fleet,
now that the Heathrow branch has become so busy.


Cool.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:59:06 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when
they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?

Poor comeback, got anything better?

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...0-worldwide-ci
ties/

Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:37:26 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
He won't want anything better because the subtext of the article is
flat fares which Boltar has said many times should be introduced in
London. Goodness know expensive a flat fare would be and what it would
do to off peak and non Zone 1 fares which are actually pretty low.

Yes, crazy idea. I mean it would never work for anything.

Oh , wait....

Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:55:12 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:49:50 on Fri, 11 Jan
2013, d remarked:
If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html

The main reason why UK (and TfL) fares are more is because we don't
subsidise them as much as most other places.

Funny how spending money on rail is seen as subsidy but spending it on roads
is seen as investment.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 13/01/2013 10:48, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:59:06 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when
they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?

Poor comeback, got anything better?

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...0-worldwide-ci
ties/

Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?


Insults and bad language are always such a persuasive arguement aren't they?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:15:27 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 10:48, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:59:06 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when
they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?

Poor comeback, got anything better?

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...0-worldwide-ci
ties/

Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?


Insults and bad language are always such a persuasive arguement aren't they?

Boltar always sounds like a pub drunk.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 13/01/2013 11:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:15:27 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2013 10:48, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:59:06 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when
they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?

Poor comeback, got anything better?

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...0-worldwide-ci
ties/

Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?


Insults and bad language are always such a persuasive arguement aren't they?

Boltar always sounds like a pub drunk.

In which case it's his round!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:48:22 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:59:06 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/01/2013 19:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:04:26 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 11/01/2013 15:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0000
Martin wrote:
Sadly all forms of public service just treat public finances like a money
tree with scant regard to efficiency unless they're forced to by caps,
whether
its the government, TfL, local councils or the BBC. In TfLs case when
they
need more money they don't look for efficiencies, they simply put up the
fares way above the rate of inflation. Every ****ing year.

B2003

Maybe the government should have just let the railways go out of
business in 1947.

If there's a good reason why the tube is the most expensive metro system
in the world I'd love to hear it.

Cite?

Enjoy.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/subwa...the-world.html


Poor methodology, got anything better?

Poor comeback, got anything better?

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...0-worldwide-ci
ties/


There's something odd about the London prices: the minimum (for Tube,
bus or tram, using Oyster) in 2010 is shown as $2.90 (or about £1.80).
I don't remember the exact bus fare in 2010, but wasn't it something
like £1.30 (ie, about $2.10), not £1.80?

The maximum is shown as the equivalent of £6.05, but it's quite hard
to say what the maximum Oyster fare is. But even a peak single Oyster
fare today, in 2013, from Zone 1 to 6, is still only £4.70, and I
assume it was more like £4.30 in 2010. As Heathrow is in Zone 6, it's
worthwhile to show fares from zone 6 to zone 1, but not any further
out. And off-peak fares are sometimes much lower.

Even a Zone 1 to Zone 9 (£6.70 today) peak fare wouldn't have been
more than the fare they quote, but that takes you right out to places
like Chesham, well outside London. I assume this is the fare they
quote. The off-peak fare on that route is over 40% cheaper.

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6, so I'd say the
right range should have been something like $2.10 -- $7.20, rather
than the $2.90 -- $9.68 they quote.

So, hardly the cheapest, but certainly not "the most expensive metro
system in the world".

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:15:27 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/01/2013 10:48, d wrote:
Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?


Insults and bad language are always such a persuasive arguement aren't they?

I'll take that as a yes.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:56:44 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Even a Zone 1 to Zone 9 (£6.70 today) peak fare wouldn't have been
more than the fare they quote, but that takes you right out to places
like Chesham, well outside London. I assume this is the fare they
quote. The off-peak fare on that route is over 40% cheaper.

Chesham is a tube station.

Just use google, I can't be bothered any more.

B2003

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:25:29 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:51:48 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:37:26 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
He won't want anything better because the subtext of the article is
flat fares which Boltar has said many times should be introduced in
London. Goodness know expensive a flat fare would be and what it would
do to off peak and non Zone 1 fares which are actually pretty low.

Yes, crazy idea. I mean it would never work for anything.

I didn't say it would not work. I queried what the fare level would
be. The follow on from that is what then happens to travel demand and
travel patterns. It would probably be popular in outer areas for
travel to the centre but not for local trips (through zones 2-9) which
are relatively cheap on PAYG, especially off peak. It would most
likely lead to an increase in Z1 and Z12 / Z123 fares. Now you either
then get loads of complaints about further inflated fares or a mass
diversion from tubes to buses which is not terribly efficient given
the tube is the better "mass transport" mode in the centre / inner
areas.

The other unknown is what would happen to TfL's revenue under such a
scheme. The TOCs almost certainly would refuse to join in such a
scheme and would object to a policy which could lead to them losing
revenue even if the policy only applied to tube fares. That's just the
nature of things under a franchising system where they take the
revenue risk.

Oh , wait....

Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works. You could have a graduated system but it would either
mean people telling the driver where they were travelling to on entry
so the right fare is deducted or else have validation on exit which is
potentially fraught with problems in London. These options would
affect the economics of the bus services as dwell times would probably
increase meaning longer journeys and more buses to provide a given
frequency level.

Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit
different there. I have used the system quite a lot and not had a
problem but the rules on the system clearly show problems can and do
arise and passengers have to jump through hoops to rectify overcharges
or non charges / equipment failures etc.

I think that if a practical way of getting back to graduated bus fares
existed then TfL would want to adopt it to increase revenue / reduce
subsidy.

Also, because London buses are slow (lots of stops, as well as bad
traffic), most people don't travel very far on a bus compared to even
a slow, stopping Tube train. So not many people would stay on the bus
long enough to get into a higher fare (eg, multi-zone) band.
Furthermore, a single Tube fare might include two or three separate
rides, with no surcharge; taking two or three buses on one journey
doubles or trebles the price (unless you hit a daily cap).

S7 Stock to Barking
 

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
-- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:56:44 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Even a Zone 1 to Zone 9 (£6.70 today) peak fare wouldn't have been
more than the fare they quote, but that takes you right out to places
like Chesham, well outside London. I assume this is the fare they
quote. The off-peak fare on that route is over 40% cheaper.

Chesham is a tube station.

Just use google, I can't be bothered any more.

Yes, I know what kind of station it is. But it's not in London, nor even
within the M25.

S7 Stock to Barking
 

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 13/01/2013 14:23, Recliner wrote:
Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

No.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

S7 Stock to Barking
 

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

I guess that would be roughly equivalent to Zones 1-4 in London?

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-5 in London?


For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-2?


For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

Maybe Zones 1-2 again, or perhaps just Zone 1?


If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Given the huge area covered by the London zonal system, it does seem odd to
try and compare it to these much smaller city areas. On a like-for-like
basis, London still isn't cheap, but it's much closer to those other
western countries (but obviously much more than second and third world
countries).

S7 Stock to Barking
 

On 13/01/2013 12:25, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:51:48 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works.

That's rather strange, because the flat fare on buses predates oyster.
--
Phil Cook

S7 Stock to Barking
 

In message , at 16:53:49 on Sun, 13
Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked:
Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works.

That's rather strange, because the flat fare on buses predates oyster.

Then perhaps it's a reason not to use Oyster as a way to introduce zonal
fares on buses.

However, I recall a story about a nun who fell asleep on a bus and
missed her stop being PF'd as a result of being over-carried. If there
were flat fares then (1999), how did that happen?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nu...for-pounds-1-1
103871.html
--
Roland Perry