In article ,
d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:35:32 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:29:01AM +0000, d wrote:

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

Ahh, so you advocate not bothering to look after the pennies and just
hoping that the pounds will still look after themselves.

That's certainly a novel approach.

So you think a set of reversing points which would have allowed the line
to run instead of being completely closed anytime there's an issue north of
shadwell is a waste of money and **** the passengers?

I don't have a good grasp of the cost/benefit ratio of your proposed
scheme. I don't think you do, either. But feel free to prove me
wrong by estimating the cost of installing - and maintaing for a
decade, say - a set of points, and the benefit of doing so - again,
expressed in cost terms.

This would enable us to talk sensibly about where in the priority
list your proposed scheme would go.

Don't forget to include the cost of increased delays when the points
fail. Obviously, you'll know the MTBF for points - I'd be interested
in knowing what that is, as it happens, so can you share your
estimate for that, too?

I guess you must work
for TfL. Either that or its idiot week on here again.

I'm quite happy to say there are things I don't know. TfL did spend
a lot of time removing reversing facilities on the tube - I think
because they felt that the cost of delays due to failure and the
cost of maintance was more than the benefit of the increased
operational flexibility. Does anyone have a link to any reports
on those measures? It might be interesting to read (and see if the
assumptions they made then still hold water).


--
Mike Bristow

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:33:55 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
I don't have a good grasp of the cost/benefit ratio of your proposed
scheme. I don't think you do, either. But feel free to prove me
wrong by estimating the cost of installing - and maintaing for a
decade, say - a set of points, and the benefit of doing so - again,
expressed in cost terms.

Feel free to tell me why the actual cost matters, rather than as a percentage
of the total cost of the ELLX.

Don't forget to include the cost of increased delays when the points
fail. Obviously, you'll know the MTBF for points - I'd be interested
in knowing what that is, as it happens, so can you share your
estimate for that, too?

I imagine the MTBF would be the same as other sets on that line. When was
the last time any of them failed and the line had to be closed because of it?

I'm quite happy to say there are things I don't know. TfL did spend
a lot of time removing reversing facilities on the tube - I think

Oh didn't they just. Every time there's a problem on the piccadilly line half
the damn line has to close. Genius.

--
Spud

In article ,
d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:33:55 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
I don't have a good grasp of the cost/benefit ratio of your proposed
scheme. I don't think you do, either. But feel free to prove me
wrong by estimating the cost of installing - and maintaing for a
decade, say - a set of points, and the benefit of doing so - again,
expressed in cost terms.

Feel free to tell me why the actual cost matters, rather than as a percentage
of the total cost of the ELLX.

Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Don't forget to include the cost of increased delays when the points
fail. Obviously, you'll know the MTBF for points - I'd be interested
in knowing what that is, as it happens, so can you share your
estimate for that, too?

I imagine the MTBF would be the same as other sets on that line. When was
the last time any of them failed and the line had to be closed because of it?

So you don't know? How can you estimate the disbenefit of additional
points if you don't know the MTBF (and the cost of the failure)?

I'm quite happy to say there are things I don't know. TfL did spend
a lot of time removing reversing facilities on the tube - I think

Oh didn't they just. Every time there's a problem on the piccadilly line half
the damn line has to close. Genius.

Given that you don't know really basic things required to assess
the change, I'm not sure you're qualified to judge. (I'm not sure
I'm qualified to make that assement, though... I don't know much
about railway operations).



--
Mike Bristow

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit. It exists to provide a public
service. Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

I imagine the MTBF would be the same as other sets on that line. When was
the last time any of them failed and the line had to be closed because of it?

So you don't know? How can you estimate the disbenefit of additional
points if you don't know the MTBF (and the cost of the failure)?

You're apparently the expert on it, so why not fill us in? Should be easy to
prove me wrong shouldn't it?

Given that you don't know really basic things required to assess
the change, I'm not sure you're qualified to judge. (I'm not sure

I'm a ****ing passenger, I'm the only type of person who SHOULD judge whether
the service is any good. Unlike half the people on here posting from australia
or the netherlands or god knows where who rarely if ever travel in london
anymore.

--
Spud

In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

--
Mike Bristow

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

--
Spud

On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your
extensive research.

E.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:04:50PM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:33:55 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
I don't have a good grasp of the cost/benefit ratio of your proposed
scheme. I don't think you do, either. But feel free to prove me
wrong by estimating the cost of installing - and maintaing for a
decade, say - a set of points, and the benefit of doing so - again,
expressed in cost terms.
Feel free to tell me why the actual cost matters, rather than as a percentage
of the total cost of the ELLX.

Because you want the actual cost to be equal to or less than the actual
benefit. And because sensible people "look after the pennies and the
pounds will look after themselves".

What's the odd 1% here, 3% there, 0.5% there, 2% there and so on? It's a
50% cost overrun and you'd be screaming and shouting about it.

Don't forget to include the cost of increased delays when the points
fail. Obviously, you'll know the MTBF for points - I'd be interested
in knowing what that is, as it happens, so can you share your
estimate for that, too?
I imagine the MTBF would be the same as other sets on that line.

I expect it wouldn't, simply because stuff that is rarely used will not
behave in the same way as stuff that is often used. The MTBF might be
longer (due to less wear and tear) or it might be shorter (because lack
of use means the mechanism gets gunged up with pigeon **** and dead
mice).

It's also worth noting that because they never get out of the "infant
mortality" part of the bathtub curve, things that arehardly ever used
are rather more likely than you would expect to fail when you need them.

Oh GOOD sigmonster.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
but that's no reason not to give it -- Agatha Christie

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:24:21 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:04:50PM +0000, d wrote:
I imagine the MTBF would be the same as other sets on that line.

I expect it wouldn't, simply because stuff that is rarely used will not
behave in the same way as stuff that is often used. The MTBF might be
longer (due to less wear and tear) or it might be shorter (because lack
of use means the mechanism gets gunged up with pigeon **** and dead
mice).

Well maybe. But OTOH its not like the crossrail works suddenly appeared out
the blue one monday morning. TfL must have had at least a years notice if
not more. More than enough time to get even the most recalcitrant set of points
bank into working condition. If they were installed of course.

Oh GOOD sigmonster.

?

--
Spud

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 02:40:51PM +0000, d wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Oh GOOD sigmonster.
?

Please don't try to pretend that you're new to this internet thing. We
all know that you're not.

--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

The Law of Daves: in any gathering of technical people, the
number of Daves will be greater than the number of women.