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