On Oct 2, 12:29 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, wrote:

It is also clearly absurd not to provide enhanced facilities at Drayton
Park for travelling supporters, especially given the huge expanse of
derelict land (the former LT depot) by the station. But don't expect AFC
to pay - why should they?

Because it's their customers who are making the improvement necessary!

tom


Sadly, being rather too cynical, I'm sure that AFC's attitude would be
that few, if any, of their fans would not travel to a home match
because Drayton Park station wasn't open. They'd simply walk from FP
instead and either blame "British Rail"/FCC or the "'Elf and Safety"
brigade for the problem. Anyway, why waste money on transport
improvements when they could waste it on ever-higher salaries for
their players and manager?

In article , Kevin Ashley
writes
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]

But Clive's figures only apply to Moorgate - WGC. The original document
was also talking about the Moorgate - Hertford North route, where the
trains usually start from either Stevenage or Letchworth. The saving there
may be even greater.

Moorgate to: ECS Service
WGC 33.5 46
Gordon Hill 19.5 31.5
Hertford North 34 47
Stevenage via HN 43.5 58.5
Letchworth via HN 51 69-71

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Okay. Assuming that the run in service back down is also 46 minutes,
and assuming zero turnaround time at either end, then the length of a
half-ECS cycle (is this what they call a diagram?)

No, a diagram is the complete set of workings of a train. So, using an
old WTT that I have to hand, a typical diagram is:

5B99 03:53 Hornsey EMD - KX (ECS, divides to form 2B99 and 2B00)
2B00 05:26 KX - Hertford North
2J01 06:35 Hertford North - Moorgate
3V91 07:30 Moorgate - WGC (ECS)
2K91 08:18 WGC - Moorgate
2B03 09:12 Moorgate - Hertford North
2J05 10:33 Hertford North - Moorgate
2B08 11:32 Moorgate - Hertford North
2J09 12:33 Hertford North - Moorgate
2B12 13:32 Moorgate - Hertford North
2J13 14:33 Hertford North - Moorgate
2B16 15:32 Moorgate - Hertford North
3K54 16:34 Hertford North - Moorgate (ECS)
2V30 17:25 Moorgate - WGC
3R24 18:18 WGC - KX (ECS)
2R24 18:53 KX - Letchworth via WGC
5R24 19:49 Letchworth - Letchworth Carriage Sidings

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Mark Brader
writes
How much time does that save over running in service?
12.5 minutes.
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]
What if they ran back in service, but nonstop?

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 2 Oct, 20:56, (Neil Williams) wrote:

The people who'd have to clean the puke off?

Plenty of people manage to puke on the trains before 0136!! Myself
included, although I've always made it to the toilet!

Currently the only way to run the 0136 train on Saturday
night would be to use a bus ALL the time!

Which is roughly what Silverlink do, so "can't be bothered" is
probably the explanation.

I doubt any TOC would ever schedule a service that is ALWAYS booked as
being run by a bus. Nor am I sure they would be allowed to anyway! I
mean, how could you propose to run a service when the railway isn't
available to you? I know First run buses, but imagine if all TOCs got
the idea of running buses instead of trains on a regular basis. Time
to close the railways altogether and to hell with timetables and quick
journey times.

If Silverlink are doing this then shame on them - but are there not
similar circumstances (long term engineering or a 'set in stone'
possession by Notwork Rail)?

Jonathan

On 2 Oct, 21:42, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

Possibly, although you could perhaps run the service like the semi-
fast Peterborough/Cambridge services in the day (xx06/xx36 from KGX),
meaning it would stop at Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Hatfield & Welwyn
Garden City. It would then be a pretty recognisable stopping pattern.
While many of us pretty much know the stopping pattern by the train
type, time of departure or even the platform number (not an exact
science but usually good enough), I don't think many other people know
or care.

The 0944 and 1014 (the 1014 is not in the current timetable) often
use(d) a 313 to do WGC, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Finsbury Park and
King's Cross. On the slow line it's a 75mph limit anyway, so bar the
slower acceleration the times aren't that different. The bottleneck is
beyond WGC, so on the inner-suburban lines there is a fair bit of
capacity available.

Technically, it's pretty irrelevant because;
a) During the off-peak times the trains aren't that busy anyway.
b) The timings of these additional services may be such that they're
only a few minutes apart from the current semi-fast trains (and, see
a).
c) Many 313s are unreliable enough as it is (many have door
interlocking problems) so until they're all fixed - hopefully as part
of the refresh - you won't want many more running as they'll only end
up screwing up the service completely!
d) In the long term, with new stock and many other changes as part of
the capacity study, the whole timetable is going to be torn up and
redone!

The only reason to consider some tweaks is because all of this talk is
about 7 or 8 years from now, so there could be a few improvements made
in the short term.

Jonathan

On Oct 2, 9:42 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Mark Brader
writes

How much time does that save over running in service?
12.5 minutes.
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]
What if they ran back in service, but nonstop?

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

At any time of day, I am not really clear why anyone getting on at
Moorgate wants all stations while anyone getting on at Kings Cross
doesn't (except at the weekend).

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:42 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Mark Brader
writes

How much time does that save over running in service?
12.5 minutes.
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]
What if they ran back in service, but nonstop?

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

At any time of day, I am not really clear why anyone getting on at
Moorgate wants all stations

?

Why wouldn't they? A stopping train is what you want for local journeys,
which, if anything, will be more prevalent outside the peaks, when all
those long-distance commuters are safely locked up at work.

tom

--
megaptera novae angliae, soundwork chris draper, push, pull, open, ..

On Oct 3, 5:26 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:42 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Mark Brader
writes

How much time does that save over running in service?
12.5 minutes.
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]
What if they ran back in service, but nonstop?

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

At any time of day, I am not really clear why anyone getting on at
Moorgate wants all stations

?

Why wouldn't they? A stopping train is what you want for local journeys,
which, if anything, will be more prevalent outside the peaks, when all
those long-distance commuters are safely locked up at work.


That's not my question. I am saying why is it everyone getting on at
Moorgate who wants all stations and everyone getting on at Kings Cross
wants fast or semifast?

I can't see why there couldn't be a pattern at any time of day that
included some stopping and some less-stopping from both Moorgate and
Kings Cross.

My only guess is that they'd want to combine less-stopping with longer
distance, and not have enough 313s, but that's nothing to do with
passenger demand.

On Oct 3, 8:29 am, MIG wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:26 am, Tom Anderson wrote:





On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:42 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Mark Brader
writes

How much time does that save over running in service?
12.5 minutes.
[Moorgate to WGC: 46 minutes in service, 33.5 minutes ECS.]
What if they ran back in service, but nonstop?

I suspect the number of passengers wanting to go end-to-end contra-peak
is tiny compared with the confusion caused by having just two or three
non-stop services in an otherwise clockface timetable.

At any time of day, I am not really clear why anyone getting on at
Moorgate wants all stations

?

Why wouldn't they? A stopping train is what you want for local journeys,
which, if anything, will be more prevalent outside the peaks, when all
those long-distance commuters are safely locked up at work.

That's not my question. I am saying why is it everyone getting on at
Moorgate who wants all stations and everyone getting on at Kings Cross
wants fast or semifast?

I can't see why there couldn't be a pattern at any time of day that
included some stopping and some less-stopping from both Moorgate and
Kings Cross.

My only guess is that they'd want to combine less-stopping with longer
distance, and not have enough 313s, but that's nothing to do with
passenger demand.-

And 313s not being suitable of course.