Steve wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
:

I take it English is not your first language. You asked why the
introduction of a new timetable took so long. Romic replied "I don't
think it's that simple...",

Err, you misquote, there was no "..." there was no reason given by
Romic.

The "..." represents the rest of the sentence that was not pertinent to my
point. That's how you quote part of a sentence, in case you didn't know.

So LU "can't do" apologists and pointless replies like "oh it is very
complicated" aside, does anyone have any suggestions as to why the
Northern Line will have being running for over 90 days on a
sub-optimal timetable?

I suggest that it's a combination of:

1. Lack of investment in modern timetabling software. Given the overall
lack of investment in LU, especially the ancient operational computers that
control parts of the system, it wouldn't surprise me if they had not
developed the timetabling side either.

2. Even if there had been a better timetabling system, I doubt whether it
would immediately be able to handle *every* conceivable constraint to the
Northern Line operation, without some development work. Or rather, the
expense of a totally flexible system able to cope with any conceivable
change to the network layout might not have been justified.

3. Even if the new timetable could have been produced very quickly (and
that includes train stabling, shift patterns, crew changes, meal breaks,
staff taxis etc etc), you've still got to be able to give staff reasonable
notice of altered shift patterns, and fitting in with annual leave for
example.

As a secondary question, given the unreliabiliy of the network, why
doesn't LU have a system where the timetable can be readjusted to cope
with these problems.

See 1 and 2 above.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)