On 12 Aug, 09:26, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Andrew H

wrote:
Now that Oyster Pay as you Go is valid on National Rail (although it
may already have been valid on Thameslink? but was all a bit vague and
confusing), I used the Thameslink route for the first time this year,
and realised that once Blackfriars south bank entrance is open, it
will be a handy link straight to the south bank and the popular thames
walkway/London Eye/Tate Modern/Millennium Bridge etc. At off peak
times a more comfortable journey than using the Northern line from
Euston.

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. *I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

You're right. Walking along a famous river through the centre of a
world famous city so that you can look at the sights and be outside in
the fresh air is not something any tourist would do. The BVMT[1] will
all cram themselves onto the Underground with all the commuters and
business people instead. Because that lets you take down the train
numbers. Oh no, that's only something the BAATs[2] do.

As it happens, when I was last showing round some real tourists in
London, walking along the Thames to get from one tourist site to
another was something they explicitly asked to do, and rejected out of
hand my suggestion that it might be quicker to use public transport.
But then none of the tourists I have ever shown round is a BVMT, I
suppose.

As so often on uk.railway, posters only consider their own personal
situation and seem to lack any ability to give a moment's thought to
what most normal people would want, and do.

Right, so because the real tourists I have met (visiting friends and
family), who do not share the tastes of the BVMT don't count.
Presumably because you take me to be a BAAT, so that my real world
observations don't count. Nothing like an ad hominem arguement to
help prove your point.

The vast majority of tourists would find staying in the thoroughly
seedy Kings Cross area quite repugnant. *If anything is going to put
them off returning to London, that's it. *

The situation may well improve over the next few years as the new
Kings Cross and St Pancras International is completed (the hotel is
still under construction) and the area is cleaned up. *But for the
time being, it is a particularly unpleasant place to be.

Hang on, are you suggesting there might be a hotel in the area? But
in just the other post you explained to me that there was no demand
for hotels in the area, because the BVMT all stay in BTHW[3].

When exactly was the last time you visited King's Cross? Of course
you can't get there, can you, because it's impossible to get from
Waterloo to King's Cross. That's why any BVMT who might have used
Eurostar *all* use Heathrow now (they can't use Gawtwick, as we have
already "established" that no tourist could ever possibly want to use
Thameslink). The area is alreay much improved over its one time
status, and is now reasonably pleasant (especially the area to the
south of Euston Road where all the made-up hotels with fictitious
tourists staying in them are).

So for some years hence, the vast majority of people who come to
London will still find accommodation among the thousands of hotels
that are to be found to the west, and of which trainspotters seem
completely unaware. *Perhaps I should not be so surprised that
trainspotters are so out of touch with normal people - it's the nature
of the hobby, I suppose, and its close connection with autism.

Well the BVMT are welcome to use the BTHW, it leaves more room for the
real tourists in the real hotels. Please mind the BAAT.

[1] Bruce's Vast Majority of Tourists
[2] Bruce's Army of Autistic Trainspotters
[3] Bruce's Thousands of Hotels in the West

Robin

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

snip copious twaddle

Well the BVMT are welcome to use the BTHW, it leaves more room for the
real tourists in the real hotels. Please mind the BAAT.


Your Asperger's is showing. ;-)

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Bruce wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

snip copious twaddle

Well the BVMT are welcome to use the BTHW, it leaves more room for the
real tourists in the real hotels. Please mind the BAAT.

Your Asperger's is showing. ;-)

Oh, shame, it's likely to bolt now. In this sort of weather, you could
kill two birds with one stone by popping some agricultural fleece over it.

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On 12 Aug, 09:26, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Andrew H

wrote:
Now that Oyster Pay as you Go is valid on National Rail (although it
may already have been valid on Thameslink? but was all a bit vague and
confusing), I used the Thameslink route for the first time this year,
and realised that once Blackfriars south bank entrance is open, it
will be a handy link straight to the south bank and the popular thames
walkway/London Eye/Tate Modern/Millennium Bridge etc. At off peak
times a more comfortable journey than using the Northern line from
Euston.

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. *I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

You're right. Walking along a famous river through the centre of a
world famous city

They've dug out the Houndsditch ? That's going to mess up the traffic
a bit, isn't it ?

so that you can look at the sights and be outside in
the fresh air is not something any tourist would do. The BVMT[1] will
all cram themselves onto the Underground with all the commuters and
business people instead. Because that lets you take down the train
numbers. Oh no, that's only something the BAATs[2] do.

As it happens, when I was last showing round some real tourists in
London, walking along the Thames to get from one tourist site to
another was something they explicitly asked to do, and rejected out of
hand my suggestion that it might be quicker to use public transport.
But then none of the tourists I have ever shown round is a BVMT, I
suppose.

As so often on uk.railway, posters only consider their own personal
situation and seem to lack any ability to give a moment's thought to
what most normal people would want, and do.

Right, so because the real tourists I have met (visiting friends and
family), who do not share the tastes of the BVMT don't count.
Presumably because you take me to be a BAAT, so that my real world
observations don't count. Nothing like an ad hominem arguement to
help prove your point.

The vast majority of tourists would find staying in the thoroughly
seedy Kings Cross area quite repugnant. *If anything is going to put
them off returning to London, that's it. *

The situation may well improve over the next few years as the new
Kings Cross and St Pancras International is completed (the hotel is
still under construction) and the area is cleaned up. *But for the
time being, it is a particularly unpleasant place to be.

Hang on, are you suggesting there might be a hotel in the area? But
in just the other post you explained to me that there was no demand
for hotels in the area, because the BVMT all stay in BTHW[3].

When exactly was the last time you visited King's Cross? Of course
you can't get there, can you, because it's impossible to get from
Waterloo to King's Cross. That's why any BVMT who might have used
Eurostar *all* use Heathrow now (they can't use Gawtwick, as we have
already "established" that no tourist could ever possibly want to use
Thameslink). The area is alreay much improved over its one time
status, and is now reasonably pleasant (especially the area to the
south of Euston Road where all the made-up hotels with fictitious
tourists staying in them are).

So for some years hence, the vast majority of people who come to
London will still find accommodation among the thousands of hotels
that are to be found to the west, and of which trainspotters seem
completely unaware. *Perhaps I should not be so surprised that
trainspotters are so out of touch with normal people - it's the nature
of the hobby, I suppose, and its close connection with autism.

Well the BVMT are welcome to use the BTHW, it leaves more room for the
real tourists in the real hotels. Please mind the BAAT.

[1] Bruce's Vast Majority of Tourists
[2] Bruce's Army of Autistic Trainspotters
[3] Bruce's Thousands of Hotels in the West

Robin

Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On 12 Aug, 09:26, Bruce wrote:

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

You're right. Walking along a famous river through the centre of a
world famous city

They've dug out the Houndsditch ? That's going to mess up the traffic
a bit, isn't it ?


Houndsditch was by the city walls, not in the centre of the city.
They've dug out the Walbrook.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT), solar penguin
wrote:


Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On 12 Aug, 09:26, Bruce wrote:

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

You're right. Walking along a famous river through the centre of a
world famous city

They've dug out the Houndsditch ? That's going to mess up the traffic
a bit, isn't it ?


Houndsditch was by the city walls, not in the centre of the city.

Indeed. Wonkypaedia manages to describe it in a manner which puts
Bishopsgate in the NW of the capital implying that the ditch crosses
it diagonally.

They've dug out the Walbrook.

That will be a relief to the Lord Mayor, the pots must be overflowing
by now. ;-)

In message
solar penguin wrote:


Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On 12 Aug, 09:26, Bruce wrote:

It will be a very long walk from Thameslink's Blackfriars southern
exit to the London Eye. I doubt that even 1% of tourists would
consider it.

You're right. Walking along a famous river through the centre of a
world famous city

They've dug out the Houndsditch ? That's going to mess up the traffic
a bit, isn't it ?


Houndsditch was by the city walls, not in the centre of the city.
They've dug out the Walbrook.

Which is the one that crosses Sloane Square station in a pipe, Westbourne?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message , Graeme
writes

Which is the one that crosses Sloane Square station in a pipe, Westbourne?

That's the one. It was dammed to form the Serpentine in Hyde Park and
Knightsbridge is named after the bridge that crossed the Westbourne.
--
Paul Terry

Returning to the original question,

IIMU that Thameslink and the other national rail lines were removed
from the tube map prior to initial Oyster implementation when they
were then only valid on tube lines i.e. to not confuse customers. No
more deeper reason than that.

Obviously now Oyster on national rail there is maybe a case for
reinstating those it, and GNcity etc. However, there was a more recent
thing about 2 years ago of TfL trying to simplify the tube map to tube
lines only - remember the hue and cry when the Thames was removed form
it. Again IIMU the idea now is the tube map with Overground is just
that, a tube map but with Overground, and anything else goes on the
London connections map, or Oyster map, or however you want to look at
it.

I suggest the current broken Thameslink is a not really the driving
force behind it as that don;lt explain the loss of GNcity.

Also I think there is a ''were do you draw the line'' argument here.
TL is a cross city route yes, but you can also its paralleled by tube
liens so is it necessary to show it ? If so, why not also high
frequency parallels Liverpool St Stratford, CX-LB, and then it goes
on, at CJ is on the Overground, why not add in CJ to Waterloo, and CJ
to Victoria. If you do that, you then say, well why not CJ Wimbledon,
CJ Croydon, but then both those connect with the south bit of current
TL, so add that, and so on and on and on.

IMHO SPILL Farringdon City Blackfriars should appear on tube maps, but
no more, as its now 10 TPH off peak frequency SX and SO.

But doubtless others will argue differently.

--
Nick

On Aug 13, 6:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
Returning to the original question,

IIMU that Thameslink and the other national rail lines were removed
from the tube map prior to initial Oyster implementation when they
were then only valid on tube lines i.e. to not confuse customers. No
more deeper reason than that.
[snip]

Sorry, that's just wrong, as the central section of Thameslink that
once featured on Tube maps - Kentish Town to Elephant & Castle/ London
Bridge - accepted Oyster PAYG from day one (as it had ticketing inter-
availability with LU - that is, LU tickets were and indeed are
accepted on this section as if it is just another Tube line).

Likewise the Great Northern/ Northern City line between Moorgate and
Finsbury Park accepted Oyster PAYG from day one as well.

I'm 100% about this (if I tried I could dig up some old TfL fare
guides PDFs that would provide confirmation - but haven't got time
now).

There is a webpage called the 'Tube Map Archives# that does just that,
it is however only a very partial collection, and in this case it
doesn't help at all as it shows two maps from 1999, one with and one
without the central section of Thameslink on it - see:
http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html

Also worth bearing in mind that AIUI there are different versions of
the map produced for different purposes (e.g. the classic folded card
map, posters and leaflets might have different versions, sometimes
just subtly different).

(When using Thameslink at London Bridge there was an odd arrangement
whereby you had to touch-out or in on standalone validators located on
the platforms used by Thameslink - the Oyster pads on the gates at
London Bridge did not accept or validate Oyster PAYG, instead one had
to explain to the gateline staff that you were using Oyster PAYG on
Thameslink - I'm serious, and I posted about it several times in the
past. Thankfully the number of people using Oyster PAYG who'd be
wanting to enter London Bridge mainline station to catch a Thameslink
train northbound but only as far as Kentish Town - later extended to
West Hampstead - was not that great, and now Oyster PAYG is accepted
across NR this strange situation has disappeared.)