On 4 Apr 2006 03:03:36 -0700, "John B" wrote:

And closure following closely no doubt. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by
doubling the track?

The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can
be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more
unattractiveness and further decline in use.

The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are
ever late or cancelled.

I don't think this is fair.

It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the
more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go
wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as
the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential
to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out
of timetabled order in the wrong places.

So why retain the through services at the times when the network is
under the most strain of all?

And why not, say, double the frequency of the shuttle, to make up for
the withdrawl of through services?