Steve Lewis wrote:
There is one person who is closely associated with London, but has never
uttered the phrases "Boris Bike" or "Boris Bus". That person is Boris Johnson.

Yes, it's other people who come up with these descriptions, not Boris
himself. One does get the impression that he doesn't object to them,
though.

On 14/06/2015 17:09, Recliner wrote:

Steve Lewis wrote:
There is one person who is closely associated with London, but has never
uttered the phrases "Boris Bike" or "Boris Bus". That person is Boris Johnson.

Yes, it's other people who come up with these descriptions, not Boris
himself. One does get the impression that he doesn't object to them,
though.


Of course he doesn't!

I wonder whether the value of the new sponsorship for the cycle hire
scheme was in any way affected by the knowledge that they're widely
referred to as 'Boris Bikes', and not 'Barclays Bikes' as was, or now
'Santander Cycles'.

(I vaguely wonder if that was a factor in Barclays pulling their
sponsorship - that, and the fact it emanated from the toxic Bob Diamond
era of the bank. That said, Barclays are also not renewing their long
standing Premier League sponsorship as of 2016, so perhaps it's just a
strategic change of direction. Interesting that the new cycle hire
sponsor is also a bank though.)

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 13/06/2015 09:48, tim..... wrote:
[...]




You're ridiculous. Who is the "claimant" of which you speak - the
journalist Tom Edwards who wrote the article? In which case, journalism
doesn't work like that - you provide summaries.

You both seem, to have completely ignored the text that I had issue with

It was: "But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor " (which is still there!)

written by the journalist

and I asked what "evidence is the to support this claim?".

(then you and Paul came in saying he was right, presumably without actually
considering what it was he said/I asked)

I've watched the (part of the) cast now and there as, as I said, absolutely
zero evidence to support this claim

If you're referring to Paul C,

It wasn't

he jumped in to support the journalist without (apparently) actually
considering what I had asked.

then why on earth should he provide a transcript if you're too distrustful
of him and also too lazy to find it yourself. His previous postings
clearly show that his analysis has integrity, so he's not just going
making something like that up.

Also, given two sources corroborate the point - a BBC journalists report
and Paul C's summary of the committee hearing - I trust the point. More
fool you if you don't.

Well, I have seen nothing in the cast to support the view that the objection
to the change in the franchise is even linked to the airport (perhaps on the
grounds that airport trains would abstract paths) and certainly not that it
was done just out of spite.

If you have this evidence, please tell me what it is?

tim

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:54:10 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:48:30 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor
"

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps
from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept
your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

For goodness sake. You really think I would make it up?

No I'm not.

I assumed that you quoted someone else's claim

I'm actually
offended by that. I've no axe to grind given I don't live in South
East London and rarely use the trains there.

Well I do ... and I don't - because I live in the bit that KCC want to
"protect", and ISTM that KCCs view here is entirely sensible.

I didn't say it wasn't sensible. They're doing what you'd would expect
them to do which is protect the interests of Kent.

I'm currently suffering a vastly reduced service because the works at LB
have meant that fewer SW locals can run, so in order to protect them, my
services have had extra stops inserted.

Yes - nothing to do with TfL. Everything to do with DfT and Network
Rail.

I don't want this reduction in service to be perpetuated because TfL take
over responsibility after LB is complete and think "that's what their
getting now so we don't need to go back to the previous service, and can
use
the new paths for our own stations"

Let's hope you keep your eyes open for the consultation on the post
2018 franchise specification and you respond appropriately.

There's not much to suggest that current service levels and stopping
patterns will persist beyond 2018. The only thing that is apparent is
that North Kent line services into Cannon Street may be marginally
less frequent than prior to the LB works. That's a function of the LB
redesign and again a DfT / Network Rail issue and nothing to do with
TfL whatsoever.

If TfL were to take over the North Kent route trains they'd face the
same infrastructure and signalling constraints as any other operator.
The only way to ease those is spend a lot more money on the
infrastructure either side of LB. Apparently some of it is in poor
state and will need attention after 2018 anyway.

The transcript of the meeting hasn't been provided yet so I can't
point you at it. Now go and tell City Hall's Secretariat that they're
a bunch of slackers.

Meeting agenda with attendees listed. Mr Balfour from Kent is the
person to listen to.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/d...20Services.pdf

The webcast is at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assem...embly/webcasts

9th June 2015 Transport Committee is the one to watch / listen to.

Fast forward to 1 hour 48 mins for the bit on "red lines" and then
keep watching to see the ongoing discussion about what happens when
TfL take over a service. 2hrs 10min is the point about Kent's
objection to previous plans.

Oh so I've still got to listen to 30 minutes :-(

No you listen from 2hrs 10 mins in as I said above. It lasts for about
5 minutes if it's such a massive strain on your schedule to find the
time.

see my reply to Mizter T


I won't bother posting relevant stuff here anymore given all the
criticism from you. You can all live in ignorance.

It wasn't you who posted the original information that I commented upon.

You attempted to support it with something that didn't actually do so.

I'm sure that people find these links to these committees most interesting,
if they are relevant to them,

tim

On 14/06/2015 15:43, Recliner wrote:

I'm amazed Wolmar even managed to creep on to the short list. This campaign
to become a candidate must have been hard work for him, and he'll be very
out of pocket, both because of the cost of the campaign (presumably not
funded by any generous donors) and the absent sales of the next railway
history book he won't have written this year.

Someone I know who is into left-wing politics recently mentioned he'd
donated to "the trainspotter's" campaign for mayor..



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2015-06-14 15:10:08 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:

I've heard "Kengestion charge"

"Kengestion tax", please

All that proves is that Boris is a bigger egomaniac than Ken was and
he was no shrinking violet.

Or that "Barclays cycle hire" is too much or a mouthful, and "New Bus
for (4?) London or is it New Routemaster?" is too confused.

Not to mention that the Spanish armada has sailed in, and so it's now
Santander Cycles. It'd perhaps be better if they thought of a catchier
generic name for it.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 13/06/2015 14:27, Paul Corfield wrote:

If TfL were to take over the North Kent route trains they'd face the
same infrastructure and signalling constraints as any other operator.

No no no. If TfL took over then the infrastructure constraints would
vanish, and the whole of south London would have Victoria Line-esque
frequencies 24/7, with trains which would be brand new every day (not
ancient like the 387s), running at
Japanese-maglev-test-train-when-the-driver-wants-to-get-home speeds,
with a network revised to have the complexity of the Waterloo & City
line. And it would be run by nice fluffy nationalised LOROL, not
contracted out to evil capitalists or foreign governments.

[see every mainstream discussion of the issues ever]
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 14/06/2015 18:32, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-06-14 15:10:08 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:

I've heard "Kengestion charge"

"Kengestion tax", please

All that proves is that Boris is a bigger egomaniac than Ken was and
he was no shrinking violet.

Or that "Barclays cycle hire" is too much or a mouthful, and "New Bus
for (4?) London or is it New Routemaster?" is too confused.

Not to mention that the Spanish armada has sailed in, and so it's now
Santander Cycles. It'd perhaps be better if they thought of a catchier
generic name for it.

The inevitable "New Bikes for London" wouldn't be much better.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 14/06/2015 18:50, Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 14/06/2015 18:32, Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
All that proves is that Boris is a bigger egomaniac than Ken was and
he was no shrinking violet.

Or that "Barclays cycle hire" is too much or a mouthful, and "New Bus
for (4?) London or is it New Routemaster?" is too confused.

Not to mention that the Spanish armada has sailed in, and so it's now
Santander Cycles. It'd perhaps be better if they thought of a catchier
generic name for it.

The inevitable "New Bikes for London" wouldn't be much better.

Of course if you want to invite sponsorship, you don't think up a catchy
generic name - the sponsor wants it to be theirs.

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

Of course if you want to invite sponsorship, you don't think up a
catchy generic name - the sponsor wants it to be theirs.

That worked so well for Barclays, didn't it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel