In article , Dave Arquati
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:
In article , Dave Arquati
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
[snip]
, Dave Arquati wrote
[snip]
John wrote:

Why do people write all this? There is gricerly interest, and there is
technical interest, and there is constructive interest (how could it be done
better?), and too little, there is POLITICAL interest - what is the
objective?

I don't understand; what's your issue with this discussion?

[snip]

I also worry that this clash between Ken's London centric view and the
possibly far more beneficial regional form of rail scheme is not good
for the nation as a whole. Ken has access to government cash - at the
moment - because he delivered the London Mayoralty for Labour. He cannot
milk that forever - especially if Gordon Brown ever becomes Labour
leader. The current apparent largesse for London is a short term payoff
- I simply don't see it being maintained.

Understandable. Obviously Ken has to represent the interest of
Londoners, but in the case of Thameslink, a regional scheme is much more
favourable, given that the current level of service to inner suburban
stations seems to be considered an over-provision.

[snip]

That leaves the main objectives of these RER-style schemes to be
additional capacity creation and Tube congestion relief, which seem more
suited to more local schemes.

Yes, so despite the public talk about Crossrail (in either of its
versions) being to make travelling conditions for Londoners easier, the REAL
objective is to bring more workers in to feed the "City" and increase the
dominance of London in the UK as a whole. I always thought so. If you LOOK at
the plans, it always seemed plain.

Crossrail *is* basically a local scheme and hence achieves the
objectives of additional capacity creation (both to accommodate growth
in travel in the future, and to increase the reliability of the existing
services now) and Tube congestion relief. What's the problem with that?

The other remaining approaches are to either do nothing (with travel
growth therefore being constrained by capacity, damaging London's status
amongst rival cities abroad) or to charge higher fares to discourage use
(which is politically unacceptable and would also damage London's status
and economy).

Growth in travel is occurring across the country, not just in London.
Crossrail is one way to accommodate some of that growth in London; other
cities have their own schemes to accommodate growth. The objective isn't
to increase the dominance of London in the UK, although that may be a
side-effect if other cities' transport plans fall by the wayside for
whatever reason. The primary objective is to sustain the growth and
status of London in the world. Secondary objectives are social inclusion
and modal shift to public transport.


--

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:32:44 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:28:26 +0000, Thomas Covenant
wrote:


The tender documentation for 123 was for the same level of service as
at present.

However I am sure you will agree that it desperately needs improvement
and that therefore the tender documentation was issued on an incorrect
premise.


The 123 certainly needs more resource that it currently has.
snip

extra Sunday buses on the W11.

Unless you know something I don't, the Sunday daytime service on W11
gets increased from 2 to 4 bph from 06/03/2005.

snip
The November Service Change Bulletin has the full list of Walthamstow
changes in it and it says that there are no changes to the W11. I do
accept that this document can often be incorrect. I guess you may want
to go and make some checks yourself!

SCB 142 (December 2004) shows the same info, but, as you say, it is
often incorrect (

Paul, remember who you're talking to and trust me on this one ;o)
You know the e-mail address for any further info.

The Sunday daytime service on W11 *is* going up to 4 bph from Sunday,
06/03/2005.

--
Thomas Covenant
Please observe reply to Address.
Unsolicited mail to "From" address
deleted unread.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:25:18 +0000, Thomas Covenant
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:32:44 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:28:26 +0000, Thomas Covenant
wrote:
extra Sunday buses on the W11.

Unless you know something I don't, the Sunday daytime service on W11
gets increased from 2 to 4 bph from 06/03/2005.

snip
The November Service Change Bulletin has the full list of Walthamstow
changes in it and it says that there are no changes to the W11. I do
accept that this document can often be incorrect. I guess you may want
to go and make some checks yourself!

SCB 142 (December 2004) shows the same info, but, as you say, it is
often incorrect (

Paul, remember who you're talking to and trust me on this one ;o)
You know the e-mail address for any further info.

The Sunday daytime service on W11 *is* going up to 4 bph from Sunday,
06/03/2005.

Oh sure - I thought I'd just be a little intransigent to see what
response I got :-)

Shame TfL don't know one end of a tender award from the other though!
To think that completely incorrect information was provided to key
stakeholders via the consultation process - they don't do themselves any
favours.

Good news on the W11 as that makes a trip to the supermarket a bit more
convenient for me. Now you've just got to make sure that (a) it runs
more reliably than today and (b) that someone makes sure the drivers
don't employ their psychic powers and drive straight down Chingford Road
while omitting Sainsburys altogether - something that happens all too
often.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:43:32 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote in :

Good news on the W11 as that makes a trip to the supermarket a bit more
convenient for me. Now you've just got to make sure that (a) it runs
more reliably than today and (b) that someone makes sure the drivers
don't employ their psychic powers and drive straight down Chingford Road
while omitting Sainsburys altogether - something that happens all too
often.

Hmm, I had you down more as a Waitrose customer. g,d&r

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:09:59 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Ivan D. Reid"
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:43:32 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote in :

Good news on the W11 as that makes a trip to the supermarket a bit more
convenient for me. Now you've just got to make sure that (a) it runs
more reliably than today and (b) that someone makes sure the drivers
don't employ their psychic powers and drive straight down Chingford Road
while omitting Sainsburys altogether - something that happens all too
often.

Hmm, I had you down more as a Waitrose customer. g,d&r

You would be correct - and I use the 123 to get to Waitrose. However I
shop at other supermarkets too. :-))
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!.