On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:49 +0100, Paul wrote:


If people in a "full" train can be persuaded to move down the car a
little to allow more passengers to board, then there is a net benefit to
passengers on that line of holding the train. If you mean literally
full, i.e. crush-loaded with absolutely no room for anyone else and
people waiting on the platform for the next train, then I agree that
ideally the train should depart and be held at the next station if the
crush-loading has eased. But you would need a more flexible signalling
system than currently exists, where AFAIK only certain signals can be
held on red in this way and the rest are automatic. There is still
probably a net benefit in holding the full train, though.
A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly even
more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing staff if
they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point above, on most
lines that run through central London (rather than just to it like the
Met) the train is unlikely to be totally packed throughout its trip so
regulation somewhere is sensible (and I'm sure most people would say
that's fine so long as its after "my" stop)

And that is the point, the system is there to provide a service, so what
is wrong with doing what benefits *most people*. Invariably when a
trains travels into London in the AM peak, if fills on the way in, then
it empties, the trains are mostly held when the train has maximum
capacity. The few that will benefit by holding the train is less than
those that benefit by actually moving it along the track (what they are
supposed to do).

Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not benefit
most people but makes the lights on the screen more even. Oh and the
trains are possibly not packed like sardines, but then again they may
become less full if we were told a it will take 30 minutes to get from
Camden to Euston and we would be better off walking - I guess that is not
a priority. This makes me seriously doubt LU has every calculated
whether holding trains or early termination of full trains does benefit
most people.

steve wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly
even more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing
staff if they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point
above, on most lines that run through central London (rather than
just to it like the Met) the train is unlikely to be totally
packed throughout its trip so regulation somewhere is sensible
(and I'm sure most people would say that's fine so long as its
after "my" stop)

And that is the point, the system is there to provide a service, so
what is wrong with doing what benefits *most people*. Invariably
when a trains travels into London in the AM peak, if fills on the
way in, then it empties, the trains are mostly held when the train has
maximum capacity. The few that will benefit by holding the train is
less than those that benefit by actually moving it along the track
(what they are supposed to do).

Holding one train for regulatory purposes slightly delays the people in
that train but benefits the people in all following trains, for the
reasons I explained. There is therefore net benefit.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:30:38 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

steve wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly
even more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing
staff if they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point
above, on most lines that run through central London (rather than
just to it like the Met) the train is unlikely to be totally
packed throughout its trip so regulation somewhere is sensible
(and I'm sure most people would say that's fine so long as its
after "my" stop)

And that is the point, the system is there to provide a service, so
what is wrong with doing what benefits *most people*. Invariably
when a trains travels into London in the AM peak, if fills on the
way in, then it empties, the trains are mostly held when the train has
maximum capacity. The few that will benefit by holding the train is
less than those that benefit by actually moving it along the track
(what they are supposed to do).

Holding one train for regulatory purposes slightly delays the people in
that train but benefits the people in all following trains, for the
reasons I explained. There is therefore net benefit.

What you explain above is fatally flawed in that you ignore the fact the
more people arrive, not only where the train is held but at the downstream
stations.

For both the existing passengers and the new arrivals, seeing a train
delayed means the service is a mess, you can't trust the indicators at
the best of times (how many times does that train 1 minute behind arrive 5
minutes later) so you get whatever train you can. Think about it from POV
of passengers.

You argue that regulating the trains makes is

"more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly even more delays"

when in fact the opposite is true.

You acknowledge that trains travelling through central London get full
then empty (esp in the AM peak), and "regulation somewhere is sensible",
somewhere, yes, somewhere sensible too? Euston SB bank branch is not.

In message , steve
writes
Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not
benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.
I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless they
fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem, perhaps you
don't mind unsafe trains, but look at the fuss when two trains collide
and you want the person responsible to be hung drawn and quartered.
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , steve
writes

Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not
benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.

I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless they
fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem, perhaps you

I'm sure I've heard the driver announce once or twice, having failed to
successfully close the doors twice, that if they failed again (i.e. if
people didn't let them shut) he would consider the train defective and
have it removed from service.


I don't know if this was just a threat or not though.

Dave Newt wrote:
Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , steve
writes

Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not

benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.

I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless
they
fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem, perhaps
you

I'm sure I've heard the driver announce once or twice, having failed
to
successfully close the doors twice, that if they failed again (i.e.
if
people didn't let them shut) he would consider the train defective
and
have it removed from service.


I don't know if this was just a threat or not though.

Thats the kind of attitude that raises stress levels of commuters and
gets drivers hated. If the train was that full not really faulty and
taken out of service how much would he be costing TFL in compensation
payments for delays (@ £2.xx per person on that train and the others
affected) and how would (s)he expect to remove the train from the
station after dumping a train load of people on the platform. I have
been in the situation where a peak Eastboud Piccidilly was turned
around at Hyde Park Corner (and it was the first train in 10 minutes) -
it left the station despite the platforms being so overcrowded that it
was impossible for myself and many others to fit the correct side of
the yellow line (+ was too crowded for the carriages to be closed one
by one)

wrote:
Dave Newt wrote:

Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , steve
writes


Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not


benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.

I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless

they

fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem, perhaps

you

I'm sure I've heard the driver announce once or twice, having failed

to

successfully close the doors twice, that if they failed again (i.e.

if

people didn't let them shut) he would consider the train defective

and

have it removed from service.


I don't know if this was just a threat or not though.


Thats the kind of attitude that raises stress levels of commuters and
gets drivers hated. If the train was that full not really faulty and
taken out of service how much would he be costing TFL in compensation
payments for delays (@ £2.xx per person on that train and the others
affected) and how would (s)he expect to remove the train from the
station after dumping a train load of people on the platform.

Agreed. Though, to be fair, how many times should he try? If they don't
shut, all the trains stop and get delayed until they do.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:04:06 +0100, Dave Newt wrote:

wrote:
Dave Newt wrote:

Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , steve
writes


Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not


benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.

I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless

they

fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem, perhaps

you

I'm sure I've heard the driver announce once or twice, having failed

to

successfully close the doors twice, that if they failed again (i.e.

if

people didn't let them shut) he would consider the train defective

and

have it removed from service.


I don't know if this was just a threat or not though.


Thats the kind of attitude that raises stress levels of commuters and
gets drivers hated. If the train was that full not really faulty and
taken out of service how much would he be costing TFL in compensation
payments for delays (@ £2.xx per person on that train and the others
affected) and how would (s)he expect to remove the train from the
station after dumping a train load of people on the platform.

Agreed. Though, to be fair, how many times should he try? If they don't
shut, all the trains stop and get delayed until they do.

It would take longer to take the train out of service. The driver has
nothing to loose as they will not work an extra five minutes because the
train was late, his last train of the day will just be cancelled or
terminated early.

The sensible solution is to for the station staff to find the door and
culprits

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:29:32 +0100, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , steve
writes
Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not
benefit most people but makes the lights on the screen more even.
I would doubt that "full trains" are taken out of service unless they
fail a trip tester or some other related safety problem,

Wrong, the are

perhaps you
don't mind unsafe trains, but look at the fuss when two trains collide
and you want the person responsible to be hung drawn and quartered.

So you start with speculation, with that speculation you the jump to a
conclusion, then use that conclusion to ridicule. You started wrong so
everything else was just irrelevant thoughts of your.