Mr Thant wrote:

The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the Hammersmith & City
Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

(I don't think any new poster network maps or map leaflets are in
circulation yet)

AIUI the new timetable changes the 7 tph H&C and 7 tph Circle into 6
tph each, meaning 12 tph departures from Hammersmith.

I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time supposed
to be some slight changes to the Met and District to maintain numbers along
the north and south sides of the common routes as well?

Which reminds me of something that doesn't seem to have been discussed much.
Is part of the real rationale for this to persuade pax from the Kings Cross
area, heading for the south western extremities of the network, to stop
using Earls Court or Gloucester Rd when changing? Most publicity just
dwells on the better service to Hammersmith H&C, without trying to explain
how that helps pax overall, IYSWIM...

Paul S

On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the Hammersmith & City
Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

(I don't think any new poster network maps or map leaflets are in
circulation yet)

AIUI the new timetable changes the 7 tph H&C and 7 tph Circle into 6
tph each, meaning 12 tph departures from Hammersmith.

I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time supposed
to be some slight changes to the Met and District to maintain numbers along
the north and south sides of the common routes as well?

Which reminds me of something that doesn't seem to have been discussed much.
Is part of the real rationale for this to persuade pax from the Kings Cross
area, heading for the south western extremities of the network, *to stop
using Earls Court or Gloucester Rd when changing? *Most publicity just
dwells on the better service to Hammersmith H&C, without trying to explain
how that helps pax overall, IYSWIM...

Paul S

It still wouldn't make it a better option than the Piccadilly.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the Hammersmith &
City Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

(I don't think any new poster network maps or map leaflets are in
circulation yet)

AIUI the new timetable changes the 7 tph H&C and 7 tph Circle into 6
tph each, meaning 12 tph departures from Hammersmith.

I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to maintain
numbers along the north and south sides of the common routes as well?

Which reminds me of something that doesn't seem to have been discussed
much. Is part of the real rationale for this to persuade pax from the
Kings Cross area, heading for the south western extremities of the
network, to stop using Earls Court or Gloucester Rd when changing?
*Most publicity just dwells on the better service to Hammersmith
H&C, without trying to explainhow that helps pax overall, IYSWIM...

It still wouldn't make it a better option than the Piccadilly.

It has been a better option when I have luggage and want to travel between
Putney and King's Cross! I can change same-platform with only the East
Putney stairs to negotiate and no long detours to use lifts (as at Earls
Court). All going 13 December unless I change twice and/or am lucky at
Edgware Road.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 11 Nov, 01:41, wrote:
In article
,





(MIG) wrote:
On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the Hammersmith &
City Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

(I don't think any new poster network maps or map leaflets are in
circulation yet)

AIUI the new timetable changes the 7 tph H&C and 7 tph Circle into 6
tph each, meaning 12 tph departures from Hammersmith.

I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to maintain
numbers along the north and south sides of the common routes as well?

Which reminds me of something that doesn't seem to have been discussed
much. Is part of the real rationale for this to persuade pax from the
Kings Cross area, heading for the south western extremities of the
network, to stop using Earls Court or Gloucester Rd when changing?
*Most publicity just dwells on the better service to Hammersmith
H&C, without trying to explainhow that helps pax overall, IYSWIM...

It still wouldn't make it a better option than the Piccadilly.

It has been a better option when I have luggage and want to travel between
Putney and King's Cross! I can change same-platform with only the East
Putney stairs to negotiate and no long detours to use lifts (as at Earls
Court). All going 13 December unless I change twice and/or am lucky at
Edgware Road.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Yes, of course, but the increased service on the Hammersmith line is
of no relevance to that journey.

I assumed that he was talking about journeys to Hammersmith or further
west, for which the Piccadilly would always be best, despite an
increased frequency for changing at Hammersmith. Probably less stairs
at Kings Cross and cross-platform interchanges at Barons Court onwards.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 11 Nov, 01:41, wrote:
In article
,





(MIG) wrote:
On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the
Hammersmith &
City Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

(I don't think any new poster network maps or map leaflets
are in
circulation yet)

AIUI the new timetable changes the 7 tph H&C and 7 tph
Circle into 6
tph each, meaning 12 tph departures from Hammersmith.

I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one
time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to
maintain
numbers along the north and south sides of the common routes
as well?

Which reminds me of something that doesn't seem to have been
discussed
much. Is part of the real rationale for this to persuade pax
from the
Kings Cross area, heading for the south western extremities
of the
network, to stop using Earls Court or Gloucester Rd when
changing?
*Most publicity just dwells on the better service to
Hammersmith
H&C, without trying to explainhow that helps pax overall,
IYSWIM...

It still wouldn't make it a better option than the Piccadilly.

It has been a better option when I have luggage and want to
travel between
Putney and King's Cross! I can change same-platform with only the
East
Putney stairs to negotiate and no long detours to use lifts (as
at Earls
Court). All going 13 December unless I change twice and/or am
lucky at
Edgware Road.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Yes, of course, but the increased service on the Hammersmith line is
of no relevance to that journey.

I assumed that he was talking about journeys to Hammersmith or further
west, for which the Piccadilly would always be best, despite an
increased frequency for changing at Hammersmith. Probably less stairs
at Kings Cross and cross-platform interchanges at Barons Court onwards.

Indeed, but useless for the Wimbledon branch, as you say. That is the
busiest western branch of the District, I understand.

It's a bit much to have the cut spun as an improvement. Though very much
in the spirit of the times, one thought that public transport operators
were a bit less prone to it than some.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time supposed
to be some slight changes to the Met and District to maintain numbers along
the north and south sides of the common routes as well?

The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ce-Changes.pdf

U

Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to
maintain numbers along the north and south sides of the common
routes as well?

The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ce-Changes.pdf

Thanks

So there really is a bit more to it than just the Circle...

Paul S

On 10 Nov, 20:03, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to
maintain numbers along the north and south sides of the common
routes as well?

The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...es-Proposed-Se...

Thanks

So there really is a bit more to it than just the Circle...

Paul S

So they've changed from the plan to terminate half the Wimblewares at
High Street Ken off peak?

MIG wrote:
On 10 Nov, 20:03, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:

The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...es-Proposed-Se...

So there really is a bit more to it than just the Circle...

So they've changed from the plan to terminate half the Wimblewares at
High Street Ken off peak?

Was that ever a firm official plan, or did posters here just propose it as
an obvious way of reducing the number of trains approaching Edgware Road?

Paul S

On 10 Nov, 21:26, "Paul Scott" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 10 Nov, 20:03, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...es-Proposed-Se...

So there really is a bit more to it than just the Circle...

So they've changed from the plan to terminate half the Wimblewares at
High Street Ken off peak?

Was that ever a firm official plan, or did posters here just propose it as
an obvious way of reducing the number of trains approaching Edgware Road?

Paul S

I am pretty sure it was the plan as printed in Modern Railways. But I
couldn't understand why Edgware Road could cope in the peak if it
couldn't cope off-peak. (And I don't really believe it can cope at
all.)