In article . li,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:

On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600,
wrote:

I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in
passenger information and facilities for people changing trains
at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL
destroyed the Circle Line.

MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious
punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would
be genuinely interesting to see figures.

But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the
Circle Line.

Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific
bits.

Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines
short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the
Circle frequency can be increased?

No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between
Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The
same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill
journeys.

I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As
someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing.

Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as
East London at the same time.

As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks
being referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well!

As someone brought up in Putney, you're all North Londoners to me!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message ,
writes

Historically the City of London has *not* been in Middlesex.

Well, not since 1132 (when Henry I granted the city county status).

Sounds pretty historic to me!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 24 Dec, 14:32, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message







On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams)
And could selective door opening
be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle?

Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains
the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and
Circle services.

I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. *Doesn't the problem
apply to several stations in a row? *Either there will be one coach
not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different
end at different stations.

This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I
didn't think it had been all that successful?

Thwe S Stock has open gangways, so even if a full car is off the
platform (unlikely), passengers are still not imprisoned.-

Fair enough, but it's not necessarily easy to move through when it's
crowded.

I've missed a late train from Charing Cross when it was announced
seconds before stopping that just one set of doors in the (Northern)
carriage wouldn't open, and some people with suitcases, whom I was
stuck behind, couldn't get through the crowd to the open door.
Walking back from Embankment was just too late.

On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600,
wrote:

I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger
information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were
not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line..

MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious
punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be
genuinely interesting to see figures.

But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle
Line.

Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific
bits.

Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short
(e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle
frequency can be increased?

No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between
Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same
applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys.

I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone
who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing.

Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East
London at the same time.

As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being
referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well!

tom

A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean,
just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why
Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition.

MIG wrote on 24 December 2009 23:55:24 ...
On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone
who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing.

Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East
London at the same time.

As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being
referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well!

A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean,
just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why
Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition.

I've looked on a map (Streetmap.co.uk) and it says that Walthamstow is
in E17, therefore East London. Seems obvious to me.
:-)

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

MIG wrote:

A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean,
just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why
Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition.

I don't know about Beckenham, but Chiselhurst is definitely in East London.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&so...th+Africa&z=15

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:55:24 -0000, MIG
wrote:


A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean,
just look on a map and tell me how that's East London
East of the Lea? East London.

and why Beckenham isn't East London.
South of the Thames? South London.

These are the 2 most important rivers in London. Don't cross either and
you shall come to no harm. Simples!

--
FIG

Tom Anderson wrote:

Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex
means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot
brush.

I hate to break it to you, but Basildon is still in Essex.

And Romford is a place unto itself.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:

On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone
who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing.

Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East
London at the same time.

As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being
referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well!

A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just
look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why Beckenham isn't
East London by the same definition.

I think what happens is that people who live in Kentish Town look east and
say "oh, that must be East London".

tom

--
It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex
means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot
brush.

I hate to break it to you, but Basildon is still in Essex.

Sedition! Calumny!

tom

--
It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum