In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

"David Walters" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:16:08 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at 11:10:49 on
Thu, 10 Jan 2013, David Walters remarked:

125. Nineteen stations just use lifts.

They have stairs as well.

A list I've been looking for but haven't been able to find is stations,
or platforms really, that don't have publicly accessible stairs.

I've always understood that every station with "only" lifts also has
emergency stairs (that may not be well signposted for regular use). And
also some stations still have the stairs despite now being fitted with
escalators (TCR springs to mind).

I think that is true but some stations have escalators and no fixed
stairs, assuming everything is working. The stairs at Angel still seem to
be present but I think I'd cause a disturbance if I exited the platforms
that way.

If you have a desire to avoid lifts and escalators then a lot of the
underground is off limits and it is very hard to plan a route with
available information.

http://www.directenquiries.com/londo...d.aspx?tbclr=1
is useful for this sort of thing.

Unless you want to interchange between lines. I looked at Oxford Circus but
could only get information between platform and street.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

What was the point? Where did it go?

Offramp wrote:
What was the point? Where did it go?

Presumably Harrow & Wealdstone, on the Brum to Euston line.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:20:45 on Fri, 11 Jan
2013, tim..... remarked:

147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer
routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via Baker
Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is considerably
slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of travellers chose it,
Professor Guo found."

I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the
journey "looking" shorted.

That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions.

Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right.


In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because
access to the circle line platforms is simpler.

Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms.

Oh

Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road?

Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then
going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle line
isn't it!

Here's another one:

What's the optimum route from Waterloo to King's Cross?

Well known to be via Oxford Circus. Because of the cross-platform change.

The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is)

Did you read the article *at all*?

Yes.

Hint: it includes a geographic map as well.

ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square
(second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely
resembling the geographic one.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people should
choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on the
ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong.

Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection time(s)
regardless of the length of track that is traversed.

In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:
I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with
the journey "looking" shorted.

That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions.

Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right.

But it does mean they are likely to be embarrassed if it's wrong, and
spend more time on the research than the average tabloid journalist.

In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because
access to the circle line platforms is simpler.

Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms.

Oh

Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road?

Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is
then going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the
circle line isn't it!

Perhaps the journalist (not the academic) got the map wrong. Like much
of the rest of this report, plenty has got lost in the retelling.

The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is)

Did you read the article *at all*?

Yes.

Hint: it includes a geographic map as well.

ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square
(second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite
closely resembling the geographic one.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The "whichever" above implies you weren't sure (or hadn't looked).

I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people
should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route
on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something
wrong.

Who was asserting that? Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route.

Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection
time(s) regardless of the length of track that is traversed.

Most of the time, yes, but there are other considerations such as
reliability of dwell time (no use if the route is the quickest, but the
connections only work between xx.20 and xx.30 because of the timetable),
how crowded they might be if it's rush hour and so on. I'd also look at
whether the robustness - having a plausible "plan B" if I encounter
disruption en-route.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12 Jan
2013, tim..... remarked:
I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the
journey "looking" shorted.

That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions.

Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right.

But it does mean they are likely to be embarrassed if it's wrong, and
spend more time on the research than the average tabloid journalist.

Surely you've been around long enough to know that all such reports only
come to the conclusion that the writer thinks that his audience wants.

In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because
access to the circle line platforms is simpler.

Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms.

Oh

Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road?

Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then
going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle
line isn't it!

Perhaps the journalist (not the academic) got the map wrong. Like much of
the rest of this report, plenty has got lost in the retelling.

The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is)

Did you read the article *at all*?

Yes.

Hint: it includes a geographic map as well.

ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square
(second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely
resembling the geographic one.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The "whichever" above implies you weren't sure (or hadn't looked).

I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people
should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on
the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong.

Who was asserting that?

The article did.

Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route.

I know, but it is probably the quickest. So in my book, that makes it the
"right" way

tim

In message , at 15:26:17 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:
I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people
should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest
route on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done
something wrong.

Who was asserting that?

The article did.

I can't see where. The only discussion of distances "on the ground" is
in terms of making the entire trip on foot, not comparing the track
miles.
--
Roland Perry

We were about to embark at Dover, when (Clive D. W.
Feather) came up to me and whispered:

How about 1837, when at least one station on the Bakerloo Line
was opened?

That one is news to me...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Am 11.01.2013 17:24, schrieb Roland Perry:

So we'd have to read the full study (which does seem to be more than
just a handful of trips).

ftp://ftp.hsrc.unc.edu/pub/TRB2011/data/papers/11-0419.pdf

Lots of models and coefficients in few pages, but I can't spot the 30
percent result. "The main dataset is the Rolling Origin and Destination
Survey (RODS), conducted by Transport for London (TfL) or its
predecessor organization London Transport from 1998 to 2005. RODS
records travel paths including the access, transfer, and egress stations
for more than 250,000 trips in the Underground network."
-- Kai Borgolte, Bonn

Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Clive D. W.
Feather) came up to me and whispered:

How about 1837, when at least one station on the Bakerloo Line
was opened?

That one is news to me...

See my earlier reply.