|
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
What was the point? Where did it go?
|
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
Offramp wrote:
What was the point? Where did it go? Presumably Harrow & Wealdstone, on the Brum to Euston line. |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:20:45 on Fri, 11 Jan 2013, tim..... remarked: 147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer routes due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map. I'm very skeptical of that claim. It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via Baker Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is considerably slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of travellers chose it, Professor Guo found." I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the journey "looking" shorted. That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions. Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right. In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because access to the circle line platforms is simpler. Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms. Oh Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road? Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle line isn't it! Here's another one: What's the optimum route from Waterloo to King's Cross? Well known to be via Oxford Circus. Because of the cross-platform change. The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is) Did you read the article *at all*? Yes. Hint: it includes a geographic map as well. ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square (second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely resembling the geographic one. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong. Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection time(s) regardless of the length of track that is traversed. |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked: I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the journey "looking" shorted. That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions. Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right. But it does mean they are likely to be embarrassed if it's wrong, and spend more time on the research than the average tabloid journalist. In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because access to the circle line platforms is simpler. Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms. Oh Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road? Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle line isn't it! Perhaps the journalist (not the academic) got the map wrong. Like much of the rest of this report, plenty has got lost in the retelling. The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is) Did you read the article *at all*? Yes. Hint: it includes a geographic map as well. ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square (second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely resembling the geographic one. I'm not suggesting otherwise. The "whichever" above implies you weren't sure (or hadn't looked). I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong. Who was asserting that? Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route. Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection time(s) regardless of the length of track that is traversed. Most of the time, yes, but there are other considerations such as reliability of dwell time (no use if the route is the quickest, but the connections only work between xx.20 and xx.30 because of the timetable), how crowded they might be if it's rush hour and so on. I'd also look at whether the robustness - having a plausible "plan B" if I encounter disruption en-route. -- Roland Perry |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12 Jan 2013, tim..... remarked: I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the journey "looking" shorted. That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions. Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right. But it does mean they are likely to be embarrassed if it's wrong, and spend more time on the research than the average tabloid journalist. Surely you've been around long enough to know that all such reports only come to the conclusion that the writer thinks that his audience wants. In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because access to the circle line platforms is simpler. Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms. Oh Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road? Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle line isn't it! Perhaps the journalist (not the academic) got the map wrong. Like much of the rest of this report, plenty has got lost in the retelling. The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is) Did you read the article *at all*? Yes. Hint: it includes a geographic map as well. ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square (second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely resembling the geographic one. I'm not suggesting otherwise. The "whichever" above implies you weren't sure (or hadn't looked). I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong. Who was asserting that? The article did. Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route. I know, but it is probably the quickest. So in my book, that makes it the "right" way tim |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
In message , at 15:26:17 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked: I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong. Who was asserting that? The article did. I can't see where. The only discussion of distances "on the ground" is in terms of making the entire trip on foot, not comparing the track miles. -- Roland Perry |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Clive D. W.
Feather) came up to me and whispered: How about 1837, when at least one station on the Bakerloo Line was opened? That one is news to me... -- Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead Wasting Bandwidth since 1981 ---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ---- |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
Am 11.01.2013 17:24, schrieb Roland Perry:
So we'd have to read the full study (which does seem to be more than just a handful of trips). ftp://ftp.hsrc.unc.edu/pub/TRB2011/data/papers/11-0419.pdf Lots of models and coefficients in few pages, but I can't spot the 30 percent result. "The main dataset is the Rolling Origin and Destination Survey (RODS), conducted by Transport for London (TfL) or its predecessor organization London Transport from 1998 to 2005. RODS records travel paths including the access, transfer, and egress stations for more than 250,000 trips in the Underground network." -- Kai Borgolte, Bonn |
Daily Telegraph: 150 fascinating Tube facts
Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Clive D. W. Feather) came up to me and whispered: How about 1837, when at least one station on the Bakerloo Line was opened? That one is news to me... See my earlier reply. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk