On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:54:01 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:57:15 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote:
Oh please. 1 set of points that would hardly ever be used would require
minimal maintenance compared to the ones at Dalston and Highbury.

The sort of minimal maintenance that led to the fatal Grayrigg
derailment?

Are LO planning on raising the speed at Shorditch to 125mph then?

----- The point
You -----

Not at all pal. You're comparing apples and oranges. Clipped points that
are used 0.01% of the time don't required the same maintenance as non clipped
ones on a 125mph high speed line.

--
Spud

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

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:16:22 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote:
Can you imagine any tube line being
closed for that many consecutive days now unless there had been a major
incident?

Yes. Some examples (not an exhaustive list):

2009: Stonebridge Park to Queen's Park for 10 days.
2011: High Street Kensington to Edgware Road for about a month.
2012: Newbury Park to Grange Hill for 8 days.
2014: Uxbridge to Rayners Lane for over 3 weeks.
2014: Bow Church to Stratford for 10 days.
2015: Walthamstow Central to Seven Sisters for 3 weeks.

And exactly how many of those had nothing to do with the line itself but
was due to other work going on?

Irrelevant. In this case the closure is because there is risk from the

So the answer is none then. As I suspected.

Crossrail works in the vicinity. So that is "to do with the line
itself".

No, its to do with maybe 20m of the line at most. With a bit of foresight
(yes I know, its TfL, thats a big ask), they would have installed reversing
points at strategic locations and this would be a non issue.

Though it does prove TfL and LU are ****ing useless at major works. On the
mainline for a long closure thats not safety related they do generally single
line running and do one track at a time.

Rubbish.

While SLW is sometimes used (Farnworth tunnel being a clear example),
often the entire line is closed. Look at all the works over the last few
Christmases and Easters.

Xmas workings are different. Try normal weekday workings when trains are
wrong lined to bypass works. Do TfL think its xmas? Is that why the ELL is
closed?

--
Spud

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

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 2016\02\18 09:38, d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:56:28 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote:
Can you imagine any tube line being
closed for that many consecutive days now unless there had been a major
incident?

Yes. Some examples (not an exhaustive list):

2009: Stonebridge Park to Queen's Park for 10 days.
2011: High Street Kensington to Edgware Road for about a month.
2012: Newbury Park to Grange Hill for 8 days.
2014: Uxbridge to Rayners Lane for over 3 weeks.
2014: Bow Church to Stratford for 10 days.
2015: Walthamstow Central to Seven Sisters for 3 weeks.

And exactly how many of those had nothing to do with the line itself but
was due to other work going on?

Though it does prove TfL and LU are ****ing useless at major works. On the
mainline for a long closure thats not safety related they do generally single
line running and do one track at a time. It seems thats too complex for LU.

Is there any chance you could get your brain to shut down both of its
cells for a brief time, instead of single-cell-running for years?

On 2016\02\18 11:45, Theo wrote:
Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

Greek road vehicle number plates are Latin alphabet (except the Greek army
uses Greek).

No, they're the intersection of the Latin and Greek alphabets. So:
PHB 1234
could be read as pee-aitch-bee or rho-eta-veta depending on which alphabet
you use, but the plate is unique in either system. There are no letters
used which aren't in both alphabets.

The army and some older municipal vehicles aren't constrained by this rule
and use other parts of the letter space.

Which letter space? Latin or Greek?

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 Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:22:01 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\02\18 09:38, d wrote:
Though it does prove TfL and LU are ****ing useless at major works. On the
mainline for a long closure thats not safety related they do generally single
line running and do one track at a time. It seems thats too complex for LU.

Is there any chance you could get your brain to shut down both of its
cells for a brief time, instead of single-cell-running for years?

Why would I want to copy your modus operandi?

--
Spud