London Banter - Queenstown Road

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - Queenstown Road (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/1395-queenstown-road.html)

On 10 Feb 2004, Matt Ashby wrote:

"Overground Network"

As you almost certainly know, the point of ON is not to distinguish it
from the London Underground, but to show that the station has at least 4
trains per hour to / from central London (i.e. that it has a 'metro'
service, much like the Underground

4 tph is not very much like the underground!

tom

--
Well parse this, you little markup asshole. -- The Parable of the Languages

Mait001" wrote in message
...
Although I despise Ken and everything he stands for (except his failed
attempt
to prevent privatisation of the Underground), credit where credit is due:
his
sheer stickability and tenacity has to be admired. He will probably win
the
next elections by sheer stealth - even a dyed-in-the-wool Tory like me
wouldn't
touch Steven Norris with a barge pole!

I'm intrigued. Livingstone stands for improving public transport. You claim
to be a railway enthusiast so by extension more pro public transport in
general than anti. Why are you against Livingstone's efforts to improve
public transport?

I am in favour of whatever attempts there are to improve public transport - as
I made clear in saying that I supported Ken's attempts to prevent Underground
privatisation.

As for other plans, I oppose congestion charging on principle (I pay taexes to
drive on The Queen's Highway and fundamentally object to paying Ken for the
right to do so), but do support generally public transport improvements. And, I
credit Ken, from his G.L.C. days, with introducing the Travelcard, which is
superb. The Oyster I don't even understand, however, and one-day tickets (which
I need to buy because my travel varies from day to day and at short notice)
aren't even included.

Ken said he'd keep the Routemaster: that was a lie, and within 6 months or so,
there will be none left. I think articulated buses in crowded streets are a
crazy idea.

But my fundamental objection to Ken is all the other panoply of Left-wing
nonsense he foisted (as G.L.C. Leader) and now foists on us, such as his
ridiculous event held during Bush's State Visit, and all the other minority
groups he funded and funds. As someone who remembers the bad old days of the
G.L.C. and I.L.E.A., I find it ironic that Ken has any responsibility for the
Police whatseover - in those days the Police were forbidden from entering
I.L.E.A. schools because they were seen as Right-wing forces of capitalism
which were in danger of corrupting young minds against the forces of good (i.e.
the G.L.C. and I.L.E.A.).

In fact I fundamentally object to having a Mayor at all. We don't need one, or
an Assembly. An overall director of transport strategy etc., with an elected
transport authority if necessary, yes, but not all of the surrounding panoply
housed in that monstrously ugly building near Tower Bridge.

Marc.

Not all of these are EU-initiated or even true currently, but I'll limit
my comment to the one that is more or less on-topic for this NG:

- railway infrastructure separate from operations (a Directive
requirement that
ensures even if we wanted it, the railways can never again be united
in
ownership)

No, that's not true. The operations and infrastructure have to be
separately accounted, but AFAIK there is no requirement actually to
force them to be in separate organisations. It was John Major's
government that decided to carve BR up in the crass way that they did.
Other countries have done it differently, within EU rules.

--
Richard J.

I do not defend the particularly crass way that Major's government privatised
the railways, but the fact that they needed to be split remains a Directive
requirement.

The fact that other countries may have retained a unified structure means
nothing: France gets away with subsidising Air France to the tune of billions -
but we would neither attempt to break the rules the way they do, nor ignore the
European Court's ruling when censured (in France's case, the Commission simply
changed the rules after the judgement, so that France was no longer in breach).

Of course they have to be separate organisations - how could Europeans bid for
franchises if there was only one franchise to be let?

Marc.

Despite everything that has been said, I still strongly dispute that there
are
4 trains per hour from Waterloo to Wandsworth Town in the evening peak
period.

There aren't four - there are six per hour!

17.02 18.02 (Kingston via Richmond)
17.17 18.17 (Shepperton via Richmond)
17.24 18.24 (Weybridge via Hounslow loop)
17.33 18.34 (Kingston via Richmond)
17.47 18.47 (Shepperton via Richmond)
17.54 18.54 (Weybridge via Hounslow loop)

Are you sure you aren't limiting yourself to just one of these three
routes between Waterloo and Wandsworth Town?

--
Paul Terry

My normal travel time is a bit later: I'd like to know how many trains are
timetabled between 7 and 8p.m.

Marc.

Haven't stuck my head over the parapet to argue politics with Marc for a
while, so...

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

P.S. Do you really believe the Hutton Report was a whitewash, and that the
B.B.C. were not wholly deserving of criticism for (at best) slipshod
reporting
and controls and (at worst) downright dishonesty in the form of Mr.
Gilligan's
(now admitted) exaggeration and unfounded source?

I am no supporter of Blur, and I wholeheartedly support the best
traditions of
public service broadcasting, but on this one issue, I am afraid, Hutton
was
absolutely right

My personal objections - and those of the BBC staff members I've spoken to -
to the Hutton report are not because Gilligan is some blameless sacrificial
lamb, or that the Corporation was entirely innocent. Rather, they are that
the report was so one sided. It seems to be fairly well-established now that
the government's September 2002 dossier was not entirely accurate - whether
by accident or design - and so it was quite a shock to see them completely
exonerated.

This is, of course, in part because the terms of the enquiry were so narrow;
some people mistook it for an enquiry into the reasons for the war, when it
was in fact into one story broadcast on Radio 4 at 6.07 one morning. Gavyn
Davies has said that once the match has started you can't argue with the
referee; but since the other team choose their own referee, it's not
surprising that he may have had an establishment bias.

Jonn