In article , lid
(Steve) wrote:

wrote in :

The Northern Line should hopefully be back to a 91 train timetable
starting 4 January - we should get the new duties and analysis sheets
at the beginning of next week. There will be stepping back at Morden
as per TT48, however there will still be no through City trains to the
Barnet branch and, I assume no Barnet branch trains through the City
because as far as I'm aware, the SB route is still secured for the CX
side.

Why does this take so long ? Surely there should be software to work it
out so what are the hold-ups?


I don't think it's that simple, plus they've also had to prepare the
christmas/New year timetables and duty sheets for the whole combine.

Roger

Steve wrote:
wrote in
:

In article ,
lid (Steve) wrote:

wrote in
:

The Northern Line should hopefully be back to a 91 train
timetable starting 4 January - we should get the new
duties and analysis sheets at the beginning of next
week. There will be stepping back at Morden as per TT48,
however there will still be no through City trains to
the Barnet branch and, I assume no Barnet branch trains
through the City because as far as I'm aware, the SB
route is still secured for the CX side.

Why does this take so long ? Surely there should be
software to work it out so what are the hold-ups?


I don't think it's that simple, plus they've also had to
prepare the christmas/New year timetables and duty sheets
for the whole combine.

It is pretty simple, you have a track, you have trains you
have drivers, all having contraints having an optimal usage.

You imply this is done by hand ias Xmas/NYE is an issue;
given the network unreliability it should be paramount to
be able to maxmise what you have available and be able to
implement it ASAP. This does require certain staff
flexibility - is this avaiable? Does LU beleive it does not
need to plan for contingencies and have these sorts of
tools available?

Oooooh look, someone else who thinks all jobs are simple, except his own.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

I take it English is not your first language.

Looks like you took that straight out of the Hammersmith derailment report
to me!

Steve wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in news:br2u95$hnl$1
@sparta.btinternet.com:

Steve wrote:
wrote in
:

In article ,
lid (Steve) wrote:

Why does this take so long ? Surely there should be
software to work it out so what are the hold-ups?

I don't think it's that simple, plus they've also had to
prepare the christmas/New year timetables and duty sheets
for the whole combine.

It is pretty simple, you have a track, you have trains you
have drivers, all having contraints having an optimal usage.

You imply this is done by hand ias Xmas/NYE is an issue;
given the network unreliability it should be paramount to
be able to maxmise what you have available and be able to
implement it ASAP. This does require certain staff
flexibility - is this avaiable? Does LU beleive it does not
need to plan for contingencies and have these sorts of
tools available?

Oooooh look, someone else who thinks all jobs are simple, except his
own.

I take it English is not your first language. Suggesting LU have an
automated system to re-configure the rosters when problems occur
(because they occur frequently) is not saying it is simple. If I
though it was simple then why would I suggest automating it?

So please, either explain where I said it was simple or recant.

You quoted it yourself above: "It is pretty simple, you have a track, you
have trains you have drivers, ...".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Steve wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
:

Steve wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in news:br2u95$hnl$1
@sparta.btinternet.com:

Steve wrote:
wrote in
:

In article ,
lid (Steve) wrote:

Why does this take so long ? Surely there should be
software to work it out so what are the hold-ups?

I don't think it's that simple, plus they've also had to
prepare the christmas/New year timetables and duty sheets
for the whole combine.

It is pretty simple, you have a track, you have trains you
have drivers, all having contraints having an optimal usage.

You imply this is done by hand ias Xmas/NYE is an issue;
given the network unreliability it should be paramount to
be able to maxmise what you have available and be able to
implement it ASAP. This does require certain staff
flexibility - is this avaiable? Does LU beleive it does not
need to plan for contingencies and have these sorts of
tools available?

Oooooh look, someone else who thinks all jobs are simple, except
his own.

I take it English is not your first language. Suggesting LU have an
automated system to re-configure the rosters when problems occur
(because they occur frequently) is not saying it is simple. If I
though it was simple then why would I suggest automating it?

So please, either explain where I said it was simple or recant.

You quoted it yourself above: "It is pretty simple, you have a
track, you have trains you have drivers, ...".

Defining the problem is simple sure, but the job of solving it I make
no indication of the difficulty - aside from implying it is no simple
doing so by hand. As the poster claimed I said the job was simple,
the question remains.

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...", and you responded "It is pretty simple ...". The
conversation as written clearly refers to the *task* of creating the
timetable. The *problem* (the inefficiency of the current temporary
timetable) was defined before you entered this thread.

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

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)

"Richard J." wrote:

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.

At the risk of being *really* pedantic, in that case, you should have
put the '...' either outside his inverted commas or else in square
brackets to show it as an edit. The way you posted implied that what he
write contained the three dots.

Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Dave Newt wrote:
"Richard J." wrote:

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.

At the risk of being *really* pedantic, in that case, you should have
put the '...' either outside his inverted commas or else in square
brackets to show it as an edit. The way you posted implied that what
he write contained the three dots.

Square brackets are called for in some pernickety house styles, but not
mine. The '...' (ellipsis) is *always* placed inside the quotation marks
according to every punctuation guide I have ever read. What's your source
for the opposite view?

Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
Nor could I! :-)

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

"Richard J." wrote:

Dave Newt wrote:
"Richard J." wrote:

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.

At the risk of being *really* pedantic, in that case, you should have
put the '...' either outside his inverted commas or else in square
brackets to show it as an edit. The way you posted implied that what
he write contained the three dots.

Square brackets are called for in some pernickety house styles, but not
mine. The '...' (ellipsis) is *always* placed inside the quotation marks
according to every punctuation guide I have ever read. What's your source
for the opposite view?

Just the way I was always taught to do things when writing academic
articles - anything in the quotes should be what the person said, except
edirorial changes which should be square bracketed.


Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
Nor could I! :-)

Don't be misled into the impression that I care either way! :-)