the tube/ppp/northern line
 

What a load of **** recently.

But why has it nosedived just in the last 2 months? Unfortunate
coincidences, PPP or something else.

And why close the City Northern Line again, last time it was closed for
many months for the stated benefit of a few minutes reduction in journey
time. How many lifetimes would it take for these
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like the "we
are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the service style maths?".

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like the
"we
are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the service style
maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their logic
however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one you're in
is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the train thats
late,
lets delay you and everyone in your train too! Also note that LU will
put
up with late trains , but god forbid if a train is early as it shall
also suffer the "regulate the service" pantomime. Brilliant! You have
to
admit, its pure genius.

B2003

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

Boltar wrote:
steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like
the "we are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the
service style maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their
logic however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one
you're in is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the
train thats late, lets delay you and everyone in your train too!
Also note that LU will put up with late trains , but god forbid if
a train is early as it shall also suffer the "regulate the service"
pantomime. Brilliant! You have to admit, its pure genius.

No, just common sense which you clearly don't understand.

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be joining
train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So not only does
train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but trains D, E, F,
etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This means
that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to trains C, D, E,
F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train A.

Holding a train which is running early avoids a long gap developing
behind it, which is essentially the same principle.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:02:43 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

Boltar wrote:
steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like
the "we are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the
service style maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their
logic however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one
you're in is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the
train thats late, lets delay you and everyone in your train too!
Also note that LU will put up with late trains , but god forbid if
a train is early as it shall also suffer the "regulate the service"
pantomime. Brilliant! You have to admit, its pure genius.

No, just common sense which you clearly don't understand.

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be joining
train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So not only does
train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but trains D, E, F,
etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This means
that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to trains C, D, E,
F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train A.

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.




Holding a train which is running early avoids a long gap developing
behind it, which is essentially the same principle.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.

They don't care. A trains a train to LU. If its packed to the gills and
no one
can get on they don't give a monkies. They'll still hold it back. As
you say,
as long as the lights on the panel look ok they're happy.

B2003

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

steve wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:02:43 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be
joining train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So
not only does train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but
trains D, E, F, etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the
slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This
means that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to
trains C, D, E, F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train
A.

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly
spread out. However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a
train *full* of people.

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.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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)

P

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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)

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

steve wrote:
Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.

Because they enjoy causing more delays e.g. On the District line:

Train crushed-full but waits in the station slighlty longer, a couple
more people squeeze on each door and the doors just manage to close.
Train moves off, people fall back slightly thereby forcing the door
open slighlty so train stops. Repeat several times. Driver announces
"I know its packed in there but don't lean on the doors..... Fine if
your gonna lean on the doors I ain't going no faster than this {in
rather abrubt tone} ... etc.".

A few points

* Net effect is to delay that train and cause the one behind to have to
queue so holding the train is counterproductive

* When it is that packed there is no option but for sevral people to
lean on the doors. Making unpleasant announcements isn't going to
change anything - opening the doors and asking people to leave might do
though

* Why can't the doors lock shut like they do on real trains (eg the new
Desiros on the Hounslow loop)

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

In message . com,
Boltar writes
Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their logic
however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one you're in
is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the train thats
late, lets delay you and everyone in your train too! Also note that LU
will put up with late trains , but god forbid if a train is early as it
shall also suffer the "regulate the service" pantomime. Brilliant! You have
to
admit, its pure genius.
If your train is late and you're on time you'll catch it, if it's early
you'll miss it. Simple really.
--
Clive.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

In message , steve
writes
Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out. However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full*
of people.
Apart from rush hour in the centre of London, I've never seen the first
and last cars packed like sardines. It's rare when there is no space
at all.
--
Clive.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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)

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

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

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:21:34 +0100, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , steve
writes
Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out. However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full*
of people.
Apart from rush hour in the centre of London, I've never seen the first
and last cars packed like sardines. It's rare when there is no space
at all.

Oh sure you can always squeeze more people in - you could even stack them
on top of each other. However, your ridiculous irrelevance has nothing to
do with this. We are talking about whether LU try to even out a set of
lights on a screen without regard for the users or not. Holding a full
train delays more people than it helps.

In the same way as closing the bank branch for months in order to reduce
journey times by a couple of minutes - this time will require someone to
live a number of lifetimes before there will be a net benefit.

My question what the reason for this is, be it incompetence, arrogance or
just not giving a damn - and how this problem can be solved.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

In message , steve
writes
Oh sure you can always squeeze more people in - you could even stack
them on top of each other.
I was making a serious point, can you sensibly add to that or not?
--
Clive.

the tube/ppp/northern line
 

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:27:09 +0100, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , steve
writes
Oh sure you can always squeeze more people in - you could even stack
them on top of each other.
I was making a serious point, can you sensibly add to that or not?

Err, read the rest of the post you snipped. Your point was also totally
irrelevant to this thread.