In article , lid
(Steve) wrote:

"Richard J." wrote in
:

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...",

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

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?

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.

Do you know what causes other than a general malaise would lead to this
delay of 1/4 of a year?

I suggest if you don't know then don't reply.

Why not just write to LUL and ask them how the timetables/duty schedules
are worked out and put forward your concerns?

Roger

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:54:16 +0000, Steve
wrote:

I asked a obvious question "Why does LU take 1/4 of a year to sort out the
timetable"


Because the processes for service change take that long. Consider:

- Number of staff required to drive the trains may increase

- Rosters have to be agreed with the Trade Union

- It may be necessary to carry out an economic evaluation.


Major changes to National Rail timetables can take up to 18 months.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:54:16 +0000, Steve wrote:

I asked a obvious question "Why does LU take 1/4 of a year to sort out the
timetable" I got a non-answer from you and stick from somebody else - LU
are hardly going to reply "We really don't give a **** about passengers, we
do not forward plan and would rather pay a monkey to come up with
timetables by hand when they have finished the Sun crossword rather than
spec and purchase a automated system (beside, do you really think we are
capable of spec'ing it) and our drivers would get the arse and going on
strike if we changed their shifts with less than 90 days notice".

Unless of course there are other reasons why, I think the above fits
perfectly.

I must remember to forward your nice commentary to the Timetables
Manager and see what he has to say about it.
--
Paul C
Admits to Working for London Underground!