Crossrail
 

Is crossrail coming under lul? or is it an new toc? Will lul staff passes be
valid? anyone know?

Crossrail
 

IanB writes

surely it will be operated by the (then) existing TOCs (as with Thameslink)
so not new TOC & nothing to do with LUL (apart from shared stations). Can
you use your LUL staff pass on Thameslink trains from Hendon to Croydon or
West Hampstead to Elephant & Castle?... I would imagine that the same rules
would apply.

Cross London Rail Links Ltd has been set up by TfL and the SRA. As to
who operates it, well that's so far into the future that it's almost not
worth bothering about.

My guess would be that if it ever gets built, it'll be a
design/build/operate lease a la Tramlink.

www.crossrail.co.uk

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Is crossrail coming under lul? or is it an new toc? Will lul staff passes
be
valid? anyone know?

Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the north,
right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it nowhere near that
sensible?

Crossrail
 

"Mark Hewitt" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Is crossrail coming under lul? or is it an new toc? Will lul staff
passes
be
valid? anyone know?

Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the north,
right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it nowhere near
that
sensible?

See www.crossrail.co.uk.

Crossrail
 

"Mark Hewitt" writes:

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Is crossrail coming under lul? or is it an new toc? Will lul staff passes
be
valid? anyone know?

Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the north,
right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it nowhere near that
sensible?

No.

Although they probably could, following the Thameslink route.

Which is going to be intermittently closed for the next couple of years.


--
"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
 

Mark Hewitt writes
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the
north, right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it
nowhere near that sensible?

East-West, not North-South. And regional services, not InterCity.

www.crossrail.co.uk

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Mark Hewitt wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Is crossrail coming under lul? or is it an new toc? Will
lul staff passes be valid? anyone know?

Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run
from the north, right through London and down to the
South-East. Or is it nowhere near that sensible?

When completed the current East London Line project will allow that as will
the existing line betrween Willesden Junction and Clapham.

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron writes
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run
from the north, right through London and down to the
South-East. Or is it nowhere near that sensible?

When completed the current East London Line project will
allow that as

I don't consider Highbury to Croydon/Crystal Palace trains
as being 'InterCity' - they will be local trains.

will the existing line betrween Willesden Junction and
Clapham.

Watford to Brighton trains? They are regional trains
rather than 'InterCity'.

Who said anything about existing service, I was talking about what the
new and existing railway will allow to happen.

There will be no InterCity trains via the ELL, only local ones.

What plans are there for InterCity trains via the Willesden-Clapham
route? I'm certainly not aware of any.

So please do enlighten us 'about what the new and existing railway will
allow to happen'.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron writes
Cast_Iron writes
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to
run
from the north, right through London and down to the
South-East. Or is it nowhere near that sensible?

When completed the current East London Line project will
allow that as

I don't consider Highbury to Croydon/Crystal Palace trains
as being 'InterCity' - they will be local trains.

will the existing line betrween Willesden Junction and
Clapham.

Watford to Brighton trains? They are regional trains
rather than 'InterCity'.

Who said anything about existing service, I was talking
about what the new and existing railway will allow to
happen.

There will be no InterCity trains via the ELL, only local
ones.

What plans are there for InterCity trains via the
Willesden-Clapham route? I'm certainly not aware of any.

So please do enlighten us 'about what the new and existing
railway will allow to happen'.

Yet again you cite current proposals. Try thinking about possibilites.

You appear to be confusing what will happen, with cloud-cuckoo land.

Where is the room to fit the InterCity trains in between the stopping
trains on the ELL?

If you want to play fantasy railways; why not go the whole hog and claim
that the current Thameslink route already 'allows' the 'possibility' of
running trains from the East Midlands, via the Thameslink route, to
Brighton?

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
What plans are there for InterCity trains via the Willesden-
Clapham route? I'm certainly not aware of any.

Part of that route was used by Virgin for trains from Brighton to Brimingham
and Manchester via Clapham Junction, Kensington Olympia and Reading, though
I think they may have been suspended during the current works on the West
Coast Main Line.

There are plans for two extra stations on the line (Shepherds Bush/White
City and Chelsea Harbour/Imperial Wharf), so paths for more inter-city
trains will become more difficult to achieve.

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

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:
Cast_Iron writes
Cast_Iron writes
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to
run
from the north, right through London and down to the
South-East. Or is it nowhere near that sensible?

When completed the current East London Line project
will
allow that as

I don't consider Highbury to Croydon/Crystal Palace
trains
as being 'InterCity' - they will be local trains.

will the existing line betrween Willesden Junction and
Clapham.

Watford to Brighton trains? They are regional trains
rather than 'InterCity'.

Who said anything about existing service, I was talking
about what the new and existing railway will allow to
happen.

There will be no InterCity trains via the ELL, only local
ones.

What plans are there for InterCity trains via the
Willesden-Clapham route? I'm certainly not aware of any.

So please do enlighten us 'about what the new and existing
railway will allow to happen'.

Yet again you cite current proposals. Try thinking about
possibilites.

You appear to be confusing what will happen, with
cloud-cuckoo land.

Where is the room to fit the InterCity trains in between
the stopping trains on the ELL?

If you want to play fantasy railways; why not go the whole
hog and claim that the current Thameslink route already
'allows' the 'possibility' of running trains from the East
Midlands, via the Thameslink route, to Brighton?

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.

Crossrail
 

"Roger H. Bennett" wrote in message
...
"Mark Hewitt" wrote in
message
...
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the
north,
right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it nowhere near
that
sensible?

No and yes respectively.

It's a planned new tunnel to run east-west, carrying an intensive
inner-suburban service (probably from about Shenfield to Heathrow), so
would
be far too slow for intercity trains.

Sounds pretty sensible to me.

I think a lot of the complaints about Crossrail not being used to run
intercity services are missing the point - it's essentially going to be a
new express tubeline, not an addition to the national railway networks.
Considered like that I think it's a great idea - the Shenfield line is one
of the busiest NR lines in London, the Isle of Dogs and City Airport need
(another) fast link to the West End, as does Heathrow. I'm sure that'll be
far more useful to more people than express trains from Norwich to Bristol.

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train services
direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who live in the
suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and the proportion of
journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you can save far more time
by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.


The better scheme is Thameslink 2000 (or Thameslink 3000 as it's now
generally known), which keeps getting postponed. That would allow more
trains to run north-south through London than on the existing Thameslink,
but still not intercity trains.


I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Jonn Elledge

Crossrail
 

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
I think a lot of the complaints about Crossrail not being used to run
intercity services are missing the point - it's essentially going to be a
new express tubeline, not an addition to the national railway networks.
Considered like that I think it's a great idea - the Shenfield line is one
of the busiest NR lines in London, the Isle of Dogs and City Airport need
(another) fast link to the West End, as does Heathrow. I'm sure that'll be
far more useful to more people than express trains from Norwich to
Bristol.

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train services
direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who live in the
suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and the proportion
of
journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you can save far more time
by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.

Numerically you may be right, but the recent cross-London trains in that
direction showed there was a demand, even though the actual service was slow
and infrequent.

I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful with fast(ish) trains from
Luton to Brighton. If that could be expanded to give one or two trains an
hour from Peterborough to suitable destinations in Kent, Surrey or Sussex I
should have thought that would be useful.

As a Northerner I don't know exactly what proportion of the congestion in
Central London is caused by people having to change stations to complete
their journeys, but I should have thought there would be enough demand to
justify (say) one or two trains an hour on each route, allowing passengers
to avoid the London Termini and relieving congestion on the Tube. That
still allows plenty of capacity for short-distance commuter trains as well.

Roger

Crossrail
 

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train
services direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who
live in the suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and
the proportion of journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you
can save far more time by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.

Numerically you may be right, but the recent cross-London trains in that
direction showed there was a demand, even though the actual service was slow
and infrequent.

I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful with fast(ish) trains from
Luton to Brighton. If that could be expanded to give one or two trains an
hour from Peterborough to suitable destinations in Kent, Surrey or Sussex I
should have thought that would be useful.

That's the basic plan for Thameslink 2000.

As a Northerner I don't know exactly what proportion of the congestion in
Central London is caused by people having to change stations to complete
their journeys, but I should have thought there would be enough demand to
justify (say) one or two trains an hour on each route, allowing passengers
to avoid the London Termini and relieving congestion on the Tube. That
still allows plenty of capacity for short-distance commuter trains as well.

It depends on whether your referring to regional journeys (e.g. those
from, say, Peterborough/Cambridge/etc.) or 'InterCity' type journeys.

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.

For InterCity-type journeys, then people may have the alternative of
using Virgin's Cross Country network of trains, instead of needing to
travel via London.



--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
It depends on whether your referring to regional journeys (e.g. those
from, say, Peterborough/Cambridge/etc.) or 'InterCity' type journeys.

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.

For InterCity-type journeys, then people may have the alternative of
using Virgin's Cross Country network of trains, instead of needing to
travel via 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.

Roger

AFAIK there is no Cross Country service from the east side of the country to
the south-east or even the south coast, except via Birmingham. And (re
Crossrail) there is no direct service from Essex/East Anglia to anywhere
south of Birmingham, except via London.

Crossrail
 

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.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

"Roger H. Bennett" writes:

[29 lines snipped]

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful

Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.


--
"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
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
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.

Sorry, I meant to say a more attractive alternative to passengers from
Yorkshire, the North-East, etc., changing at Peterborough, Hitchin or the
like onto a fast cross-London train. Much as is available to passengers
from the East Midlands by changing at Luton.

Roger

Crossrail
 

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.

Michael Bell

--

Crossrail
 

In article , Huge wrote:
Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.

There's a big difference between a TOC that can deliver one train an hour
with every train on time and one that delivers eight trains an hour with
every train five minutes late.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

Crossrail
 

"Roger H. Bennett" writes:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
Once again Thameslink has been quite successful

Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Successful in attracting passengers - including you, I believe.
;-)

Attracting? I think not.

--
"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
 

(David Marshall) writes:
In article , Huge wrote:
Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.

Indeed. What they should have said is that Thameslink's management will
be publically hanged in front of St. Pancras station.


There's a big difference between a TOC that can deliver one train an hour
with every train on time and one that delivers eight trains an hour with
every train five minutes late.

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


--
"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
 

Michael Bell writes:
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,

Although we will likely all be retired by then.


--
"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
 

On 20 Jul 2003 08:56:27 GMT Huge wrote:
} (David Marshall) writes:
} In article , Huge wrote:
} Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
} country, according to the SRA.
}
} Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.
}
} Indeed. What they should have said is that Thameslink's management will
} be publically hanged in front of St. Pancras station.

In front of Kings Cross if you please. Less aestheticaly damaging.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

Crossrail
 

Matthew Malthouse writes:
On 20 Jul 2003 08:56:27 GMT Huge wrote:
} (David Marshall) writes:
} In article , Huge wrote:
} Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
} country, according to the SRA.
}
} Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.
}
} Indeed. What they should have said is that Thameslink's management will
} be publically hanged in front of St. Pancras station.

In front of Kings Cross if you please. Less aestheticaly damaging.

Oh, I don't know. I would have thought that gibbets fit in quite well
with Victorian Gothic.

--
"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 , 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*.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

Crossrail
 

Huge wrote:
(David Marshall) writes:
In article , Huge
wrote:
Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable
TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.

Indeed. What they should have said is that Thameslink's
management will
be publically hanged in front of St. Pancras station.


There's a big difference between a TOC that can deliver
one train an hour with every train on time and one that
delivers eight trains an hour with every train five
minutes late.

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

Wrong - as usual.

Crossrail
 

Huge writes
We already have Thameslink services from Brighton to Bedford. When the
Bedford electrification is extended northwards, as surely it must be
in the end,

Although we will likely all be retired by then.

And Hell will be quite a chilly place... I can't see electrification
being extended northwards.

Even if it was, it would be trying to mix two different types of market
on the same service - which doesn't work. People travelling form
further north will be wanting high speed trains which make few stops.
The existing services need fast trains which make regular stops - the
current service won't have many people travelling all the way from
Bedford to Brighton, but will allow people to go from Luton to Gatwick,
St Albans to Croydon.

So merely extending the existing trains won't work. Running separate
through 'InterCity' trains wont work either as the central section will
never have the capacity to accommodate both types of trains.

--
Dave

Crossrail
 

Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Roger H. Bennett" wrote in message
Once again Thameslink has been quite successful with fast(ish) trains from
Luton to Brighton. If that could be expanded to give one or two trains an
hour from Peterborough to suitable destinations in Kent, Surrey or Sussex
I should have thought that would be useful.

I agree there should be a few paths an hour as these have been quite
successful. But I don't think every town in the south needs a connection to
either Luton or Peterborough;

I agree. And anyway it would be impractical: there are too many possible
destinations. A better target for long-distance journeys via London
would be to reduce two changes to one, by running trains across the
centre to a terminus the other side. Brussels does this, apart from
Eurostar - trains to the north start from the south station, and vice
versa.

while I do think that every bit of South London needs a direct connection
to central and northern London. Hence I think suburban services should be
the priority.

Agree again, but these trains should be frequent enough for one change
to have little effect on journey time.

Run your cross-London services on the most popular routes - but
liberally provide interchanges to maximise one-change journey
possibilities as well as direct ones.

That means Crossrail 1 needs to connect with the Piccadilly - and not
just at Heathrow.


Colin McKenzie

Crossrail
 

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:57:03 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

In article , Huge wrote:
Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.

There's a big difference between a TOC that can deliver one train an hour
with every train on time and one that delivers eight trains an hour with
every train five minutes late.

Not Really.

If every train is five minutes late, then they should build that into
the timetables. I don't really care if jouneys take longer in the
timetable - as long as I KNOW how long they are going to take, and
that I have a good chance of getting there when I thought I would be
there.

As has been said elsewhere, Thameslink should be running to the
timetable. If they can't do that, then the timetable needs to be
changed.


---
This message has come to an end.
Please exit to your left.

*UK Dark Ride and UK Theme Park Trip Reports*
http://www.lewstube.fsnet.co.uk

Remove my clothing to reply.

Crossrail
 

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. Also, with the MML sharing
with them, 5 minutes can miss a path, which causes it to wait for the
next one, which makes the delay longer, which makes the already bad
congestion on the service even worse.

---
This message has come to an end.
Please exit to your left.

*UK Dark Ride and UK Theme Park Trip Reports*
http://www.lewstube.fsnet.co.uk

Remove my clothing to reply.

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.


I make him 100% right.

Crossrail
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...

I agree. And anyway it would be impractical: there are too many possible
destinations. A better target for long-distance journeys via London
would be to reduce two changes to one, by running trains across the
centre to a terminus the other side. Brussels does this, apart from
Eurostar - trains to the north start from the south station, and vice
versa.

As, indeed, does Dublin. Southbound from Connolly to Rosslare and some
northbound trains from Pearse. Unfortunately the Irish equivalent is not
quite on the same scale as Brussels!

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that doesn't mean it's
true.

Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can, whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?

Crossrail
 

"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:57:03 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

[18 lines snipped]


As has been said elsewhere, Thameslink should be running to the
timetable. If they can't do that, then the timetable needs to be
changed.

Precisely.


--
"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
 

"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".


--
"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
 

NM wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.

Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?

You seem to assume that the railway has no external influences.

Crossrail
 

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


NM wrote:


Cast_Iron wrote:


Huge wrote:



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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.


Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?


You seem to assume that the railway has no external influences.


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

Crossrail
 

NM wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


NM wrote:


Cast_Iron wrote:


Huge wrote:



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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.


Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?


You seem to assume that the railway has no external
influences.


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

I can, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to think about things.

Crossrail
 

Dave wrote:




What Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains it trains and
systems so that the timetable is achievable. What it can't do is make
other operators

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.