Crossrail
 

NM writes
So as I suspected you can't refute his claim.

That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading a
simple web page.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:
NM writes

As was said Thameslink publish a timetable, thank you for the detail
about how they do it but that changes nothing, they have ample
opportunity to ensure they meet their own criteria and if they don't
'tis their fault.


It's a shame that you didn't actually bother to read and understand what
I wrote. This problem of yours is becoming a big drawback in trying to
sustain a sensible debate.

You only read what you want to read, make no attempt to learn what you
don't already know and decline to respond to questions where this would
expose your ignorance.

And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this will
not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for keeping to
their own timetable.

Crossrail
 

NM writes
That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading a
simple web page.


Pounds = Euro ?? and I can't read?

I fond it quite amusing that you persist in claiming that you are
correct when even a cursory examination of that web page highlights your
error - you simply just didn't read it properly.

Never mind, it's quite amusing watching you making a complete arse of
yourself.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

NM writes
And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this will
not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for keeping
to their own timetable.

*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable? Just
not bother to run any trains at all?

What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?

What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?

There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company. You also appear to
have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).

But your lack of clue fails to surprise me. Never mind, stick to the
Nijnte books eh? You might learn something.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

In article , Matthew Malthouse
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:20:49 +0100 Michael Bell wrote:
} In article , Dave
} wrote:
} Roger H. Bennett writes
} Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
} Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
} route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
} because it avoids central London.
}
} I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity
} trains. A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited
} stops, could provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings
} Cross, changing to the Tube, then changing again at another London
} terminus.
}
} Those are what are what is meant by 'regional' journeys.
}
} We already have Thameslink services from Brighton to Bedford. When the
} Bedford electrification is extended northwards, as surely it must be
} in the end, I would think that the Brighton service would follow, so
} we would have a service Brighton, London, St Albans, Luton, Bedord,
} Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield. That seems to have reasonable
} commercial potential.

I wonder how much of that traffic actually crosses London? And how much
would cross London if such an extention were to happen?

More subtly how much crosses for Gatwick and how much goes all the way?

Resonable question! But people from say, Brighton, will not
all want to get off at the same point in London, they will get off
some at Croydon, some Farringdon,,,etc and as they get off, they might
as well be replaced by people getting on to go to Luton, Sheffield,
etc. Running straight through central London isn't just a benefit to
passengers, it also avoids the need to supply crew in central London,
always a problem, and avoids the need to reverse trains in terminal
stations.

Michael Bell

--

Crossrail
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:
Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.

From my expirience, the frequent service only "doesn't matter" on
paper. In the real world, Thameslink seem to develop huge gaps in the
service on an alarmingly regular basis

Quite.

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".

It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

Peter Smyth

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:

NM writes

That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading
a simple web page.


Pounds = Euro ?? and I can't read?


I fond it quite amusing that you persist in claiming that you are
correct when even a cursory examination of that web page highlights your
error - you simply just didn't read it properly.

Never mind, it's quite amusing watching you making a complete arse of
yourself.

Please explain, AFAIUI you claimed, using the AA website you quoted,
that fuel was more expensive in the Netherlands than in the UK. the
reason you got it wrong was that the AA website quoted, quite clearly,
the price in Euros, you failed to take that on board and in order to
cover up your mistake you now try to accuse me of lack of comprehension
skills. Carry on, the truth is plain to see for anyone who can be bothered.

Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake? If anyone is making an arse
of themselves it's you.

I live in the Netherlands and travel quite often to the UK by car, van
or aircraft, don't you think I'm in a better position than you to know
accurately about the fuel cost differential?

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Dave wrote:

NM writes


As was said Thameslink publish a timetable, thank you for
the detail about how they do it but that changes nothing,
they have ample opportunity to ensure they meet their own
criteria and if they don't 'tis their fault.


It's a shame that you didn't actually bother to read and
understand what I wrote. This problem of yours is
becoming a big drawback in trying to sustain a sensible
debate.

You only read what you want to read, make no attempt to
learn what you don't already know and decline to respond
to questions where this would expose your ignorance.


And you can argue black is white until the cows come home
but this will not change the simple fact that Thameslink
are responsibe for keeping to their own timetable.


They might be reponsible for it, but that's very different to *"Thameslink
publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they can't abide by
it."* isn't it?


No.

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:

NM writes

And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this
will not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for
keeping to their own timetable.


*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable?
Refuse to publish an unworkable timetable.
Just
not bother to run any trains at all?
Best idea yet.

What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?
Make sure they are.

What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?
See that there is no recurrence.

There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company.
Yeah, everyones fault but theirs.
You also appear to
have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).
Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever redress they see
fit.

But your lack of clue fails to surprise me. Never mind, stick to the
Nijnte books eh? You might learn something.

The only thing I have learnt from you is that you are a PT apologist. PT
is pants.

Crossrail
 

Peter Smyth wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:


In article , Huge

wrote:

Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.

From my expirience, the frequent service only "doesn't matter" on

paper. In the real world, Thameslink seem to develop huge gaps in the
service on an alarmingly regular basis

Quite.

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".


It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

Peter Smyth


Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Crossrail
 

NM wrote:

Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Given that the tickets I buy allow me to use any number
of routes, which might include Thameslink, how do you
expect to achieve that?

And the flexibility is incredibly useful. It allows me
to choose the best connection across London and adjust
my journey if, for instance, my train into London is
a little late and some other route will work better.

Crossrail
 

"NM" wrote in message
m...

*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable?
Refuse to publish an unworkable timetable.
Just
not bother to run any trains at all?
Best idea yet.

What a brilliant idea. No trains must be much better than late trains.


What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?
Make sure they are.

Thameslink are not responsible for the infrastructure, Network Rail are.

What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?
See that there is no recurrence.

How? Creep into the other companies depots in the middle of the night and
sabotage all their trains to give the Thameslinks a clear run?

There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company.
Yeah, everyones fault but theirs.

So what is this magic way for Thameslink to run all their trains on time? I'm
sure you could make millions if you could run a perfect 100% reliable train
service.

You also appear to
have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).
Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever redress they see
fit.

Like what?

Peter Smyth

Crossrail
 

Peter Smyth wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
m...


*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable?

Refuse to publish an unworkable timetable.
Just

not bother to run any trains at all?

Best idea yet.


What a brilliant idea. No trains must be much better than late trains.


What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?

Make sure they are.


Thameslink are not responsible for the infrastructure, Network Rail are.


What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?

See that there is no recurrence.


How? Creep into the other companies depots in the middle of the night and
sabotage all their trains to give the Thameslinks a clear run?


There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company.

Yeah, everyones fault but theirs.


So what is this magic way for Thameslink to run all their trains on time? I'm
sure you could make millions if you could run a perfect 100% reliable train
service.


You also appear to

have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).

Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever redress they see
fit.


Like what?

Peter Smyth


That's for them to decide, legal action perhaps, some sort of pressure,
whatever, as a punter it's not my problem my contract is with Thameslink.

Crossrail
 

NM writes
Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Once again proving your ignorance.

Travelcards are valid on that route and Travelcards are sold by lots of
train companies and TfL. Thameslink can't prevent those people with
Travelcards from travelling on its trains even if it wanted to.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

NM writes
I fond it quite amusing that you persist in claiming that you are
correct when even a cursory examination of that web page highlights
your error - you simply just didn't read it properly. Never mind,
it's quite amusing watching you making a complete arse of yourself.

Please explain, AFAIUI you claimed, using the AA website you quoted,
that fuel was more expensive in the Netherlands than in the UK. the
reason you got it wrong was that the AA website quoted, quite clearly,
the price in Euros, you failed to take that on board and in order to
cover up your mistake you now try to accuse me of lack of comprehension
skills.

Like I pointed out to you before. It shows the price in local currency
(euro) and in the sterling equivalent.

It shows 1.15 as the local currency amount and the sterling equivalent
of 79.85p.

Carry on, the truth is plain to see for anyone who can be bothered.

Absolutely. Go back ad look again - and then apologise. Or are you
just hoping to wait until the next report is posted to try and hide the
evidence of your foolishness?

Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake?

I have made no mistake.

If anyone is making an arse of themselves it's you.

Either you are so stubborn that you won't go back and look at the
website to see your error - or you are *so* thick in that you can't see
the error you made

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:



Either you are so stubborn that you won't go back and look at the
website to see your error - or you are *so* thick in that you can't see
the error you made

I just happen to live here and I know how much I pay for fuel, I have
offered to supply you with a recent reciept showing the price.

You carry on believing you are right if that makes you happy, I know
different. AFAIC the matter is closed.

Crossrail
 

NM wrote:
Peter Smyth wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
m...


*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to
learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is
unworkable?

Refuse to publish an unworkable timetable.
Just

not bother to run any trains at all?

Best idea yet.


What a brilliant idea. No trains must be much better than
late trains.


What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks,
signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?

Make sure they are.


Thameslink are not responsible for the infrastructure,
Network Rail are.


What can they do if another company's train makes the
Thameslink train late?

See that there is no recurrence.


How? Creep into the other companies depots in the middle
of the night and sabotage all their trains to give the
Thameslinks a clear run?


There are many reasons for trains not running to time
that are totally outside of the control of the operating
company.

Yeah, everyones fault but theirs.


So what is this magic way for Thameslink to run all their
trains on time? I'm sure you could make millions if you
could run a perfect 100% reliable train service.


You also appear to

have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said
"What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its
trains and systems so that the timetable is achievable."
Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a
Thameslink train (or for that matter a Connex,
SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).

Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my
contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever
redress they see fit.


Like what?

Peter Smyth


That's for them to decide, legal action perhaps, some sort
of pressure, whatever, as a punter it's not my problem my
contract is with Thameslink.

What about when some dickhead road vehicle driver who can't maintain control
decides to dump his vehicle on the track in front of an approaching train,
is that the train operating companies fault?

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron wrote:



That's for them to decide, legal action perhaps, some sort
of pressure, whatever, as a punter it's not my problem my
contract is with Thameslink.


What about when some dickhead road vehicle driver who can't maintain control
decides to dump his vehicle on the track in front of an approaching train,
is that the train operating companies fault?


Ultimately yes, as the punter my contract is with Thameslink, they fail,
for whatever bull**** reasons, it's their fault AFAIC. Accidents and
catastrophes aside, I thought we were talking about normal daily
running, it's notable how weak your position is when you have to use
extreme unusual accidents to justify the TOC's poor performance.

Crossrail
 

NM wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:



That's for them to decide, legal action perhaps, some sort
of pressure, whatever, as a punter it's not my problem my
contract is with Thameslink.


What about when some dickhead road vehicle driver who
can't maintain control decides to dump his vehicle on the
track in front of an approaching train, is that the train
operating companies fault?


Ultimately yes, as the punter my contract is with
Thameslink, they fail,
for whatever bull**** reasons, it's their fault AFAIC.
Accidents and catastrophes aside, I thought we were talking
about normal daily
running, it's notable how weak your position is when you
have to use
extreme unusual accidents to justify the TOC's poor
performance.

Taking the railway as a whole people depositing their cars on the track is
not unusual nor extreme. There is also the situation where blind lorry
drivers try to stuff their high vehicle under a low bridge, a daily
occurence.

Crossrail
 

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:29:53 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

snip

What about when some dickhead road vehicle driver who can't maintain control
decides to dump his vehicle on the track in front of an approaching train,
is that the train operating companies fault?

Yes, if they PT wasn't so bad he wouldn't need a vehicle [1] :-)

I reality there is SFA bar 3 feet thick concrete barriers they could
do. After all if they did less than that and a tank carrier spilled
another Samaritan over the barrier there would be another pointless
outcry.

[1] No I'm not being serious :-)


--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

Crossrail
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

Go back to the original question, "Is this some mechanism to allow
"inter-city" trains to run from the north, right through London and
down to
the South-East."

The questioner isn't asking about current nor proposed train
services. He's
asking about mechanisms which will allow something to happen. In
this
instance the track alignments and connections will allow it to
happen,
questions of timetabling, service intervals whilst relevant in the
real
world are not applicable in the context of the question.

Learning to read, understand and then giving an accurate concise
reply to
the question really does save an awful lot of time and energy.

I'd bet the original poster just wants to know if Crossrail is likely
to result in service trains from the North to the SE rather than a
pedantic ramble about track alignments.

Crossrail
 

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Matthew
Malthouse
wrote:

I wonder how much of that traffic actually crosses London? And how much
would cross London if such an extention were to happen?

More subtly how much crosses for Gatwick and how much goes all the way?

Resonable question! But people from say, Brighton, will not
all want to get off at the same point in London, they will get off
some at Croydon, some Farringdon,,,etc and as they get off, they might
as well be replaced by people getting on to go to Luton, Sheffield,
etc. Running straight through central London isn't just a benefit to
passengers, it also avoids the need to supply crew in central London,
always a problem, and avoids the need to reverse trains in terminal
stations.

If you travel on Thameslink, it is noticeable that a lot of people who board
south of London Bridge are travelling to or beyond Kings Cross Thameslink.
One retrograde step made by MML is to cut out stops at Luton, which make
cross-platform or same-platform changes onto Thameslink simple. As it is,
passengers either have to change at Leicester or struggle across to KXTL.

Obviously planned by people who get a taxi at St Pancras.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Crossrail
 

NM writes
Either you are so stubborn that you won't go back and look at the
website to see your error - or you are *so* thick in that you can't
see the error you made

I just happen to live here and I know how much I pay for fuel, I have
offered to supply you with a recent reciept showing the price.

You carry on believing you are right if that makes you happy, I know
different. AFAIC the matter is closed.

Jolly good. You carry on feeling smug. I carry on knowing you are a
****wit who can't read.

Suits me fine.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Peter Smyth" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

[14 lines snipped]

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".

It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

1) Does London Bridge mysteriously become smaller between the morning
and evening rush hours?

2) It's about time they evicted the whingers from Borough Market and got
on with expanding it then.

3) It's still bull****.


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Crossrail
 

"Peter Smyth" writes:

"NM" wrote in message
om...

[42 lines snipped]

Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever redress they see
fit.

Like what?

Who cares? Not my problem.


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Crossrail
 

In article ,
Terry Harper wrote:
Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.
Unfortunately the frequent service does not extend to the extremities.

I certainly agree with you there. It's a great service through London
(late running or not) but far too infrequent further out.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

Crossrail
 

On 21 Jul 2003 18:42:26 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

2) It's about time they evicted the whingers from Borough Market and got
on with expanding it then.

I'd never thought I'd agree with you - but I do re (2)!

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Crossrail
 

Robert Woolley writes
On 21 Jul 2003 18:42:26 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

2) It's about time they evicted the whingers from Borough Market and got
on with expanding it then.

I'd never thought I'd agree with you - but I do re (2)!

AOL
Me too!
/AOL

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
NM writes
Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Once again proving your ignorance.

Travelcards are valid on that route and Travelcards are sold by lots of
train companies and TfL. Thameslink can't prevent those people with
Travelcards from travelling on its trains even if it wanted to.

--
Dave

Exactly. The same perhaps applies to a fair number of single and return
journeys within Thameslink's operating area, eg a single Kentish Town to
London Bridge might be sold at Kentish Town LU station, but be valid on
Thameslink services too.

Andrew

Crossrail
 

"NM" wrote in message
m...


Peter Smyth wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:


In article , Huge

wrote:

Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really
*matter*.

From my expirience, the frequent service only "doesn't matter" on

paper. In the real world, Thameslink seem to develop huge gaps in the
service on an alarmingly regular basis

Quite.

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".


It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths
available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

Peter Smyth


Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.



Booking clerks can't suddenly decide to refuse to sell the (****ing) tickets
to customers at their window because of an extended gap between trains, can
they ?

Andrew

Crossrail
 

"Andrew" writes:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
NM writes
Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Once again proving your ignorance.

Travelcards are valid on that route and Travelcards are sold by lots of
train companies and TfL. Thameslink can't prevent those people with
Travelcards from travelling on its trains even if it wanted to.

--
Dave

Exactly. The same perhaps applies to a fair number of single and return
journeys within Thameslink's operating area, eg a single Kentish Town to
London Bridge might be sold at Kentish Town LU station, but be valid on
Thameslink services too.

Although it's way quicker to do it on the Jubilee, all other things
being equal.


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Crossrail
 

Andrew writes
Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.

Once again proving your ignorance.

Travelcards are valid on that route and Travelcards are sold by lots of
train companies and TfL. Thameslink can't prevent those people with
Travelcards from travelling on its trains even if it wanted to.

Exactly. The same perhaps applies to a fair number of single and
return journeys within Thameslink's operating area, eg a single Kentish
Town to London Bridge might be sold at Kentish Town LU station, but be
valid on Thameslink services too.

In fact, to add to the above - I have a feeling that for the section
between Kentish Town and London Bridge/Elephant & Castle/Moorgate, LU
fares might apply anyway. I've always assumed that's the reason why
railcard discounts don't apply for journeys wholly within that section.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:
NM writes

Either you are so stubborn that you won't go back and look at the
website to see your error - or you are *so* thick in that you can't
see the error you made

I just happen to live here and I know how much I pay for fuel, I have
offered to supply you with a recent reciept showing the price.

You carry on believing you are right if that makes you happy, I know
different. AFAIC the matter is closed.


Jolly good. You carry on feeling smug. I carry on knowing you are a
****wit who can't read.

Suits me fine.

No problem, the knowledge of being in the right when dealing with a
total tosser does generate a certain smugness.

BTW it was 0.79 Euro again this afternoon

Crossrail
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" writes:
In article , Huge
writes
Exactly. The same perhaps applies to a fair number of single and return
journeys within Thameslink's operating area, eg a single Kentish Town to
London Bridge might be sold at Kentish Town LU station, but be valid on
Thameslink services too.

Although it's way quicker to do it on the Jubilee, all other things
being equal.

Kentish Town to London Bridge on the Jubilee? That's a clever trick.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. For some reason my eyes read "Kentish Town" and my head said
"West Hampstead".

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Crossrail
 

In article , (David
Marshall) wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:
Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.

The trouble with Thameslink if travelling from Brighton to Cambridge is
that most of the time you can leave Brighton later, travel more
comfortably to Victoria put up with the Victoria Line admittedly and get
to cambridge at the same time as using Thameslink. The times to cross
central London are dire, even compared with the tube. Ironically the seem
to keep to time better than South Central IME.

And another factor I discovered arriving at King's Cross Thameslink on
Thursday at 17:30 (on time) was that the platforms are barely passable to
the exits because of people waiting for other Thameslink trains. I know
the platforms are narrow but it was a real struggle. This seemed to be a
feature of all Thameslink platforms from Blackfriars to King's Cross
Thameslink.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
And another factor I discovered arriving at King's Cross Thameslink on
Thursday at 17:30 (on time) was that the platforms are barely passable to
the exits because of people waiting for other Thameslink trains. I know
the platforms are narrow but it was a real struggle. This seemed to be a
feature of all Thameslink platforms from Blackfriars to King's Cross
Thameslink.


Except for City Thameslink, which I've never found to be overcrowded even at
peak periods. Though the platforms are much deeper than KX Thameslink, and
there's an exit at both ends at the platform.

I agree with your description of King's Cross Thameslink in the evening
peak. When I commuted from City Thameslink to Cambridge I would ride in the
carriage which stopped by the King's Cross Thameslink exit to minimise the
time taken to get off the platform.

I read somewhere (Modern Railways, I think) that the new Thameslink Midland
Road station (for Thameslink 2000) will have just two platforms. I dread to
think how overcrowded the northbound one will become at 1730, with both
Bedford and King's Lynn services departing from the main platform.

Just think how many people wait on platform 8 at KX for the 1745 to King's
Lynn, add it to the number of people in the existing crush at the same time
at King's Cross Thameslink northbound, and you've got an almighty scrum,
even with wider and longer platforms. Surely someone has thought of this?

PaulO

Crossrail
 

In message , Paul Oter
writes
Just think how many people wait on platform 8 at KX for the 1745 to King's
Lynn, add it to the number of people in the existing crush at the same time at
King's Cross Thameslink northbound, and you've got an almighty scrum, even
with wider and longer platforms. Surely someone has thought of this?

Yes.

They are going to double the fares.
--
Bob Adams.
(amster has been killed by spam.)

email to: