Met to Aldgate
 

On Dec 29, 10:12 am, Boltar wrote:

I already said the train was in service. WTF does it matter if a
couple or people were in it or not?

Quite a lot when you clearly stated ''completely empty''

Not just ''empty'', by adding ''completely'' you infer it was
definite.


Anyway, you appear to have made up your mid, your are right, everyone
else is wrong, no-one can say anything else, no-one can help you, and
you do need help if you rant aout 3 minute delays on a line you said
you infrequrnt.

--
Nick

Met to Aldgate
 

D7666 wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:12 am, Boltar wrote:

I already said the train was in service. WTF does it matter if a
couple or people were in it or not?

Quite a lot when you clearly stated ''completely empty''

Not just ''empty'', by adding ''completely'' you infer it was
definite.

Just give it up will you. Compared to the train I was on which
probably had 300 odd it was empty.

Anyway, you appear to have made up your mid, your are right, everyone
else is wrong, no-one can say anything else, no-one can help you, and
you do need help if you rant aout 3 minute delays on a line you said
you infrequrnt.

Not really, the staff were just being bloody minded. Besides which I
had to wait about 10 minutes for my train to show up in the first
place. Though thats par for the course at off peak times on the
northern stretch of the picc these days which seems to be run more
like a country branch line than a metro system.

B2003

Met to Aldgate
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...


Not really, the staff were just being bloody minded. Besides which I
had to wait about 10 minutes for my train to show up in the first
place. Though thats par for the course at off peak times on the
northern stretch of the picc these days which seems to be run more
like a country branch line than a metro system.


I have a further theory, now that you've mentioned the line had delays. For
the benefit & safety of pax further down the line, where the platforms are
wedged with people whose trains haven't arrived, is it better to send the
'empty' train first, or the full train?

Paul S

Met to Aldgate
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"Boltar" wrote in message
...


Not really, the staff were just being bloody minded. Besides which I
had to wait about 10 minutes for my train to show up in the first
place. Though thats par for the course at off peak times on the
northern stretch of the picc these days which seems to be run more
like a country branch line than a metro system.


I have a further theory, now that you've mentioned the line had delays.
For the benefit & safety of pax further down the line, where the platforms
are wedged with people whose trains haven't arrived, is it better to send
the 'empty' train first, or the full train?

I doubt that safety even affects the consideration. For the better
timekeeping of the service, which is best?

tim

Met to Aldgate
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

I have a further theory, now that you've mentioned the line had delays.
For the benefit & safety of pax further down the line, where the
platforms are wedged with people whose trains haven't arrived, is it
better to send the 'empty' train first, or the full train?

I doubt that safety even affects the consideration. For the better
timekeeping of the service, which is best?


I think in this case safety as in platform overcrowding rather than any
other particular hazard.
Speaking as a member of the public, I would have said the empty train, as it
should initially load faster at the next few stations; but it would be
interesting to know a staff members opinion...

Paul

Met to Aldgate
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

I have a further theory, now that you've mentioned the line had delays.
For the benefit & safety of pax further down the line, where the
platforms are wedged with people whose trains haven't arrived, is it
better to send the 'empty' train first, or the full train?

I doubt that safety even affects the consideration. For the better
timekeeping of the service, which is best?


I think in this case safety as in platform overcrowding rather than any
other particular hazard.
Speaking as a member of the public, I would have said the empty train, as
it should initially load faster at the next few stations; but it would be
interesting to know a staff members opinion...

That is my point. You should run the empty train first because its dwell
time at the stations will be shorter and it will not get later and later
like the full train would. I'm sure that safety suggests that you should do
this, but you should do it anyway, even if the platforms aren't over full.

It's the same arguement as artifically delaying a train because the next one
is seriously late. You do this so that the late one (and everything behind
it) doesn't get any worse.

tim