"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 wrote:


...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the London
Connections map.


Ooh, where abouts?

And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at:
http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf

I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the
Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For
example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than
District Line services off-peak?

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The
metropolitan Kent section is all over the place - Bexleyheath line greyed
out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly.
Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the
day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and
Bromley very carefully...

Nick

Nick:
Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The
metropolitan Kent section is all over the place - Bexleyheath line
greyed
out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out
incorrectly.
Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the

day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley
and
Bromley very carefully...

I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has
4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the
terminus for two of those trains (IIRC).

That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent
services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that
many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively
served by two infrequent routes.

Jonn

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 wrote:


...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the London
Connections map.


Ooh, where abouts?

And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at:
http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf

I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the
Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For
example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than
District Line services off-peak?

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The
metropolitan Kent section is all over the place

You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you?

You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or
otherwise) - now, get over it!!

- Bexleyheath line greyed
out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out
incorrectly.
Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the
day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and
Bromley very carefully...

Nick

Your name rhymes with *Dick*

"A H" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...

...

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The
metropolitan Kent section is all over the place

You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you?

I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the
thread.

You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or
otherwise) - now, get over it!!

TfL don't have a problem describing this area as Kent:

http://www.tfl-ticketlocator.co.uk/geographical-map.asp

So why do you feel so threatened by it?

I think it's quite reasonable to refer to the Kent addresses within the
Greater London administrative area as "metropolitan Kent". Far more
descriptive than the bland and somewhat meaningless description of "south
London" which could mean just about anywhere south of the Thames.

I don't know why you're getting so upset about it anyway. If the people
around here want to describe themselves as in
London/Kent/Sussex/Surrey/Whatever, what do you care?

- Bexleyheath line greyed
out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out
incorrectly.
Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the
day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and
Bromley very carefully...

Nick

Your name rhymes with *Dick*

How old are you again?

Nick

I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has
4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the
terminus for two of those trains (IIRC).

That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent
services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that
many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively
served by two infrequent routes.



I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away the
mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want
to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to
know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs
every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane to
Uxbridge service.

The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the
South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South London-metropolitan
Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey Metro)
is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains off-peak
would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you
know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read very
recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to
Victoria.

Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument (i.e.
metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and the
operating companies.

Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand the
relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA.

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has
4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the
terminus for two of those trains (IIRC).

That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent
services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that
many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively
served by two infrequent routes.

I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away
the
mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want
to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to
know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs
every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane
to
Uxbridge service.

Yes, agreed that map needs more detail to be of any real use.

The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the
South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South
London-metropolitan
Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey
Metro)
is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains
off-peak
would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you
know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read
very
recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to
Victoria.

The original IKF specification had off-peak trains on the Bexleyheath trains
(4tph) going to Cannon Street, with another 2tph going to Victoria (if I
remember right). In modifying their plans, the SRA moved the Victoria
trains to run to and from Sidcup only and gave the Bexleyheath line 2tph
Charing X and 2tph Cannon St.

Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument
(i.e.
metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and
the
operating companies.

Maybe, but it appears that the SRA consultation revealed the local users of
these stations strongly opposed such plans.

As one of the London-based transport bodies said at the time (LTUC?), TfL's
desire with single destinations for a particular line was being given too
much priority. Most people want to go to Charing Cross, not Cannon St or
Victoria. Clearly presented timetables, signs and announcements are what
are needed to avoid confusion, not the inconvenience of making many people
change trains to make the timetable "simple".

Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand
the
relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA.

Well, I hope the current situation of multiple destinations from the
stations around here remains.

It's a shame TfL haven't carried out a similar consultation around here
before they adopted their "high frequency, single destination" stance. I
remain totally convinced that this is something of a distration; 4tph
(reasonably spaced across the hour) is perfectly adequate for off-peak
sevices to stations around here. What we need are simple ticketing
arrangement (well, we have a Travelcard, that does nicely), clear timetables
and station displays (much more could be done on this), a much improved
station environment to encourage users in the first place, and lastly much
better maintenance and cleaing of the trains themselves.

The Networkers that many of us travel to work on are in a pretty grim state,
with fairly high levels of vandalism. This must be a big deterant to rail
travel. Recently, we've seen the introduction of the "tube style" 376
trains that are quite shockingly uncomfortable for any signicant journey (45
mins from Dartford to Charing X is not pleasant).

"A H" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 wrote:


...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the
London
Connections map.


Ooh, where abouts?

And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at:
http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf

I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the
Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For
example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than
District Line services off-peak?

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The
metropolitan Kent section is all over the place

You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you?

Metropolitan Kent is a rather good description IMO. I live in Bexley
borough and don't know anyone who wouldn't describe their location as "in
Kent" so I would suggest you are somewhat out of touch with feelings around
here.

You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or
otherwise) - now, get over it!!

What are you, the London branding police? You're the one who needs to get
over it by the sound of it. Everybody knows most people in Bexley and
Bromley describe themselves as in Kent. If you were more confident in the
benefits of a Greater London area, you would not appear to be so afraid to
let them carry on doing so.

- Bexleyheath line greyed
out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out
incorrectly.
Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the
day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and
Bromley very carefully...

Nick

Your name rhymes with *Dick*

And you hide behind two anonymous initials. Hmm. What area of "London" do
you live in, by the way? It must be a million miles away from Bexley as you
seem to have no understanding (or indeed tolerance) of the mood around here.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote:

"A H" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate.
The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place

You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you?

I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to
the thread.

How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'?

metropolitan *Greater London*

Tautology.

So why do you feel so threatened by it?

Because Kent LOVES terrr and HATES freedom.

tom

--
In Milan, [traffic lights] are instructions, in Rome suggestions, and in Naples Christmas decorations. -- James Dowden

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote:

"A H" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
...

Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate.
The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place

You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you?

I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to
the thread.

How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'?

How about 'The London Boroughs Currently Known As Kent By Local Residents?'
;-)

metropolitan *Greater London*

Tautology.

What about the villages in the SE corner of Bromley borough; not exactly
metropolitan?

So why do you feel so threatened by it?

Because Kent LOVES terrr and HATES freedom.

Ummm.

In article ,
(Rich Mallard) wrote:

I live in Bexley
borough and don't know anyone who wouldn't describe their location as
"in Kent"

I don't know anyone who would say that Reading is in Berkshire...

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