Next time get the bus (or walk) to Gunnersbury, and get the
District/NLL from there. The NLL has a timetable, so at least you can
plan for that, even though they are sometimes late.

Trains in the morning rush seem to always be 2-3 minutes late and
severe problems are rare; the short constant delays seem to be less of
a problem in the evening rush but more substantial delays (15 mins or
more) are more common. Punctuality does seem to have improved sharply
this year compared to last where it was rare that a train was not 5-7
mins late.

The staff and boards are best ignored, incidentally: the system that
reports the delay digitally appears to have been programmed as part of
a school project and the staff regularly just lie. I speak from many
months' experience. Only 2 weeks ago at Acton Central, the man at the
ticket counter told me that a train had just left Gunnersbury - a
colleague at that station assured me otherwise: the magic of mobile
phones, eh?

Incidentally, on the matter of the GCSE train arrival information
system: I was wondering how National Rail compile punctuality stats? Do
they use the same data that we see on the screens in the stations or do
they capture it separately? I ask as it is very common (as in
more-often-than-not common) that a train delayed by more than 5 mins
will simply be reported as being "On Time" at my station on the screen.

wrote:
Incidentally, on the matter of the GCSE train arrival information
system: I was wondering how National Rail compile punctuality stats? Do
they use the same data that we see on the screens in the stations or do
they capture it separately? I ask as it is very common (as in
more-often-than-not common) that a train delayed by more than 5 mins
will simply be reported as being "On Time" at my station on the screen.

Not sure of the direct answer to your question, but I've noticed on
South Eastern trains that when the train is later than the magical four
minutes, the automated announcements always reflect this. So, for
example, if the 11.25 arrives at 11.28, the announcement will be "The
train at Platform 4 is the 11.25 to...", if it arrives at 11.30 the
announcement will be "The train at Platform 4 is the delayed 11.25
to...".

And who decided that +/- 4 minutes means "on time", anyway? Can't see
the Swiss accepting that...

Patrick

Not sure of the direct answer to your question, but I've noticed on
South Eastern trains that when the train is later than the magical four
minutes, the automated announcements always reflect this. So, for
example, if the 11.25 arrives at 11.28, the announcement will be "The
train at Platform 4 is the 11.25 to...", if it arrives at 11.30 the
announcement will be "The train at Platform 4 is the delayed 11.25
to...".

And who decided that +/- 4 minutes means "on time", anyway? Can't see
the Swiss accepting that...

Patrick

I've always been troubled by the whole %age On Time concept both for
the reason you mention and the concept of using trains rather than
passengers as being On Time.

What I mean to say is that if you take - say - the NLL and look at the
delays. Last year the line reported punctuality of 95 or 96% - assuming
that this was based on the real running times of the trains and based
on my personal experiences, it must have meant that almost all the
off-peak trains were running on time. But these often run 10% full (and
those passengers are less likely to be daily users) while the rush hour
trains are packed.

Therefore, a much larger %age than 4% or 5% were delayed on the line.
This explains the mismatch between what - on the face of it - appears
to be a good figure and the experiences of regular passengers you hear
from, when discussing the line.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:15:11 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

What ever happened to the proposal too run a branch from the central
line to Richmond and discontinue the district service? Was it all
connected to Crossrail going ahead?

Long gone. The proposal was coupled with a Bakerloo branch from
Willesden Junction to North Acton to take over the Ealing Broadway
branch of the Central line. That rather odd package was an alternative
option studied alongside Crossrail some 20 years or so ago as part of a
general cross-London rail study. It would have been very expensive for
the relatively small achievement of increasing District frequency
between Turnham Green and Ealing.

It would have increased frequency on all branches of the District, and
on the Circle too.

wrote:
wrote:
Incidentally, on the matter of the GCSE train arrival information
system: I was wondering how National Rail compile punctuality stats? Do
they use the same data that we see on the screens in the stations or do
they capture it separately? I ask as it is very common (as in
more-often-than-not common) that a train delayed by more than 5 mins
will simply be reported as being "On Time" at my station on the screen.

Not sure of the direct answer to your question, but I've noticed on
South Eastern trains that when the train is later than the magical four
minutes, the automated announcements always reflect this. So, for
example, if the 11.25 arrives at 11.28, the announcement will be "The
train at Platform 4 is the 11.25 to...", if it arrives at 11.30 the
announcement will be "The train at Platform 4 is the delayed 11.25
to...".

And who decided that +/- 4 minutes means "on time", anyway? Can't see
the Swiss accepting that...



On South Eastern, they do do some adjustments, but they can't handle
which train is going first on the "first train to" board. Eg, if you
stand at somewhere like Hither Green or Lewisham, where trains come
from different directions, if, say, the 1130 is now expected at 1145,
it will say that the first train to Charing Cross is expected at
platform x at 1145. It won't mention that the (on time) 1135 to
Charing Cross from platform y is actually going to be the first.

On Silverlink, which runs the NLL, as far as I am aware, the displays
never show anything except the scheduled times, with no adjustments or
variations due to actual events.

I have mentioned before that when there was major disruption for a few
days due to flooding, all the displays at Queens Park were left
switched on and displayed all the normal train times, none of which
were running.

You also tend to see that the next train is expected in 18 minutes,
just as the previous one turns up 2 minutes late.

In article .com,
MIG wrote:
On Silverlink, which runs the NLL, as far as I am aware, the displays
never show anything except the scheduled times, with no adjustments or
variations due to actual events.

This is not true: at Camden Town, Leytonstone High Road and Upper Holloway
at least, the screens show the expected time - when the screens are working.

--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article .com,
MIG wrote:
On Silverlink, which runs the NLL, as far as I am aware, the displays
never show anything except the scheduled times, with no adjustments or
variations due to actual events.

This is not true: at Camden Town, Leytonstone High Road and Upper Holloway
at least, the screens show the expected time - when the screens are working.



May be true at those, but I've used Queens Park a lot and never
observed anything to be displayed other than the scheduled train times,
which disappear when the train should have passed, whether it does or
not.

Aosmosis wrote:
How reliable is the Richmond branch of the NNL and district line?

I think almost from the moment your question was rendered it's been
pumping awful!
--
gordon

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:29:17 +0930, Aidan Stanger wrote:

What ever happened to the proposal too run a branch from the central
line to Richmond and discontinue the district service? Was it all
connected to Crossrail going ahead?

It would have increased frequency on all branches of the District, and
on the Circle too.

I can see how it would've done so on the District, but how would it
increase the frequency on the Circle?

If you wait on the westbound Circle/District platform at somewhere
like Victoria, you should see (if all is going to plan) a cycle of
westbound destinations; something like: Ealing Broadway, Wimbledon,
Richmond, Circle Line, then the cycle repeats. Each cycle lasts 8.5
minutes at peak time, and this is the peak frequency on each District
branch and the Circle.

So, Circle frequency cannot currently be increased without reducing
the (already low) frequency on some or all of the District branches.

A bit of guesswork on my part suggests that if the Richmond branch
were transferred to another line (e.g. Crossrail), the cycle could
simply have the Richmond destination removed, shortening it to 6 mins
or so.

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:29:17 +0930, Aidan Stanger wrote:

What ever happened to the proposal too run a branch from the central
line to Richmond and discontinue the district service? Was it all
connected to Crossrail going ahead?

It would have increased frequency on all branches of the District, and
on the Circle too.

I can see how it would've done so on the District, but how would it
increase the frequency on the Circle?

If you wait on the westbound Circle/District platform at somewhere
like Victoria, you should see (if all is going to plan) a cycle of
westbound destinations; something like: Ealing Broadway, Wimbledon,
Richmond, Circle Line, then the cycle repeats. Each cycle lasts 8.5
minutes at peak time, and this is the peak frequency on each District
branch and the Circle.

So, Circle frequency cannot currently be increased without reducing
the (already low) frequency on some or all of the District branches.

A bit of guesswork on my part suggests that if the Richmond branch
were transferred to another line (e.g. Crossrail), the cycle could
simply have the Richmond destination removed, shortening it to 6 mins
or so.

It wouldn't be that simple. You would need to get rid of some H&C or Met
services as well in order to ensure there was sufficient capacity on the
north half of the Circle.

Peter Smyth