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: ---

" 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.

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: ---

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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".