| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
ELL poorly patronised now
I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months.
Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. -- Spud |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
ELL poorly patronised now
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:48:06 +0000
eastender wrote: On 2015-11-18 09:36:14 +0000, d said: Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave They always start counting down from 7 mins when they see you coming. I was being kind. 7 minutes is the official gap. When I got it regularly it was often somewhat longer. -- Spud |
East London Line poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
On 2015-11-18 18:48:13 +0000, e27002 aurora said:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. This is sad to hear. The Overground has such great potential. But, the speed on its routes are excruciatingly slow. Surely all that investment should allow for a more sprightly system. They can seem slow especially between stations close together but they are main line not underground trains. |
ELL poorly patronised now
On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 09:36:16 UTC, wrote:
I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
Spritely.
|
ELL poorly patronised now
On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:44:47 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\18 21:32, wrote: I don't know why, but I tend to go out via Canada Water and the Jubilee, and return all the way by Overground. Can you try and work out why... it might be important. And exactly which journey are you describing? 60 or 405 Bus from Coulsdon to West Croydon, Overground to Canada Water, Jubilee Line to Stratford. Return from Stratford to West Croydon Overground all the way, changing at Canonbury and Dalston Kingsland. Bus from Croydon to Coulsdon. Sometimes do other things, Croydon to Stratford by 75 and 108 bus for example, but that's even slower. I can think of other journeys where I tend to go out and return by different routes, but for no obvious reason. |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent thoughts of mine. My own recent foray around East London presented me with confusing signs to multiple DLR platforms at Stratford, and confusing new signs in Hackney Central / Downs pointing from one half of the station to the other. As I arrived at Hackney from Chingford, robobint said "Change here for trains to Enfield Town" but didn't mention Cheshunt. And the part of the tube map between Seven Sisters and Mile End looks like an explosion in a spaghetti factory, utterly defeating the eyes' ability to plan routes without having to think too hard. I believe that the Overground brand, and to a lesser extent the DLR brand, are obfuscating rather than enlightening. I don't even know what promise the Overground brand is supposed to make. "Underground" means that wherever I may have ended up, I go in here and I can get frequent trains through Central London where I can make one change to another frequent line that will take me home. There are a few exceptions, like Roding Valley, but the Underground largely lives up to that promise. "Overground" - what is that promising? It used to mean orbital travel, for the most part, but that doesn't hold any more. If someone stumbles out of a party at 7am on a Sunday morning and finds himself at Turkey Street station, what does that Overground roundel represent? 2tph to the edge of Zone 1, and probably two changes before he gets home? That's hardly anything for a station to brag about - there are very few stations in Greater London that offer less (Emerson Park is ironically one). Overground is actually a negative concept. Just as the Volkswagen brand means "This is made by the same people who make Audi's, but it would harm the Audi image if we wrote Audi on a car like this", Overground means "This is run by the same people who run the Underground, but it would harm the Underground brand if we wrote Underground on stations that have infrequent service which only touches Zone 1 or avoids it completely. So the Overground brand exists purely to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the Underground. And yet, the Overground management act as if they have an inferiority complex, writing Overground everywhere and doing their best to obliterate the historic line identities as if writing Overground on something is the finest praise imaginable. We need different colours and line names. We need the trains to Chingford to have a different colour on the map from the trains that call at London Fields and Cambridge Heath. And the DLR needs to get line names too, so that the signs at Stratford and on the District Line line guides can start making sense. http://www.metrolondres.es/wp-conten...-mapa-tube.jpg has four different DLR interchanges, and no clue as to which you're supposed to use to get to which part of the DLR. |
East London Line poorly patronised now
Basil Jet wrote:
Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent thoughts of mine. My own recent foray around East London presented me with confusing signs to multiple DLR platforms at Stratford, and confusing new signs in Hackney Central / Downs pointing from one half of the station to the other. As I arrived at Hackney from Chingford, robobint said "Change here for trains to Enfield Town" but didn't mention Cheshunt. And the part of the tube map between Seven Sisters and Mile End looks like an explosion in a spaghetti factory, utterly defeating the eyes' ability to plan routes without having to think too hard. I believe that the Overground brand, and to a lesser extent the DLR brand, are obfuscating rather than enlightening. I don't even know what promise the Overground brand is supposed to make. "Underground" means that wherever I may have ended up, I go in here and I can get frequent trains through Central London where I can make one change to another frequent line that will take me home. There are a few exceptions, like Roding Valley, but the Underground largely lives up to that promise. "Overground" - what is that promising? It used to mean orbital travel, for the most part, but that doesn't hold any more. If someone stumbles out of a party at 7am on a Sunday morning and finds himself at Turkey Street station, what does that Overground roundel represent? 2tph to the edge of Zone 1, and probably two changes before he gets home? That's hardly anything for a station to brag about - there are very few stations in Greater London that offer less (Emerson Park is ironically one). Overground is actually a negative concept. Just as the Volkswagen brand means "This is made by the same people who make Audi's, but it would harm the Audi image if we wrote Audi on a car like this", Overground means "This is run by the same people who run the Underground, but it would harm the Underground brand if we wrote Underground on stations that have infrequent service which only touches Zone 1 or avoids it completely. So the Overground brand exists purely to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the Underground. And yet, the Overground management act as if they have an inferiority complex, writing Overground everywhere and doing their best to obliterate the historic line identities as if writing Overground on something is the finest praise imaginable. We need different colours and line names. We need the trains to Chingford to have a different colour on the map from the trains that call at London Fields and Cambridge Heath. And the DLR needs to get line names too, so that the signs at Stratford and on the District Line line guides can start making sense. http://www.metrolondres.es/wp-conten...-mapa-tube.jpg has four different DLR interchanges, and no clue as to which you're supposed to use to get to which part of the DLR. I agree. We need line numbers on the Underground, Overground and DLR, just as bus routes have numbers. Maybe they could have an alpha prefix, but it would be much clearer if every route had a unique number. It's particularly confusing to non-locals on the subsurface Underground lines where similar looking trains serve many different routes from the same Circle line stations. |
ELL poorly patronised now
On 19/11/2015 01:00, wrote:
In article , () wrote: In my experience trains from Dalston in the evening peak become very heavily loaded by the time they leave Whitechapel; the few times I have boarded there I tend to have to wait a long time, sometimes over an hour, for a train where I can get a seat. I cannot stand for more than a few stops now due to bad legs. From Dalston to Shoreditch High Street it's not so crowded, but there's usually a net gain of passengers at each station. They may not be well marked but 378s have priority seats which you should be claiming. How does one go about doing so? Is there a defined protocol apart from just asking? Having recently been hobbling around on a severely sprained ankle but apart from a pronounced limp show no sign of being (albeit it temporarily) disabled and in pain, it's of some passing interest. What if I have acquired the seat and e.g. a pregnant woman boards? It's better now to the point of not worrying whether I can get a seat or not, but the first couple of weeks were not so good. |
East London Line poorly patronised now
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:29:03 +0000
eastender wrote: On 2015-11-18 18:48:13 +0000, e27002 aurora said: On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. This is sad to hear. The Overground has such great potential. But, the speed on its routes are excruciatingly slow. Surely all that investment should allow for a more sprightly system. They can seem slow especially between stations close together but they are main line not underground trains. Even so, there's still no excuse for the **** poor service speeds. I've been in a 378 when the driver was obviously running late and they can get up and go when they need to. The trains arn't at fault - the drivers are. Also quite why the drivers feel they need to creep into every station at 10mph beats me quite frankly. The ELL needs ATO and fast. -- Spud |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
On Thursday, 19 November 2015 07:19:44 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent thoughts of mine. My own recent foray around East London presented me with confusing signs to multiple DLR platforms at Stratford, and confusing new signs in Hackney Central / Downs pointing from one half of the station to the other. As I arrived at Hackney from Chingford, robobint said "Change here for trains to Enfield Town" but didn't mention Cheshunt. And the part of the tube map between Seven Sisters and Mile End looks like an explosion in a spaghetti factory, utterly defeating the eyes' ability to plan routes without having to think too hard. I believe that the Overground brand, and to a lesser extent the DLR brand, are obfuscating rather than enlightening. I don't even know what promise the Overground brand is supposed to make. "Underground" means that wherever I may have ended up, I go in here and I can get frequent trains through Central London where I can make one change to another frequent line that will take me home. There are a few exceptions, like Roding Valley, but the Underground largely lives up to that promise. "Overground" - what is that promising? It used to mean orbital travel, for the most part, but that doesn't hold any more. If someone stumbles out of a party at 7am on a Sunday morning and finds himself at Turkey Street station, what does that Overground roundel represent? 2tph to the edge of Zone 1, and probably two changes before he gets home? That's hardly anything for a station to brag about - there are very few stations in Greater London that offer less (Emerson Park is ironically one). Overground is actually a negative concept. Just as the Volkswagen brand means "This is made by the same people who make Audi's, but it would harm the Audi image if we wrote Audi on a car like this", Overground means "This is run by the same people who run the Underground, but it would harm the Underground brand if we wrote Underground on stations that have infrequent service which only touches Zone 1 or avoids it completely. So the Overground brand exists purely to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the Underground. And yet, the Overground management act as if they have an inferiority complex, writing Overground everywhere and doing their best to obliterate the historic line identities as if writing Overground on something is the finest praise imaginable. We need different colours and line names. We need the trains to Chingford to have a different colour on the map from the trains that call at London Fields and Cambridge Heath. And the DLR needs to get line names too, so that the signs at Stratford and on the District Line line guides can start making sense. http://www.metrolondres.es/wp-conten...-mapa-tube.jpg has four different DLR interchanges, and no clue as to which you're supposed to use to get to which part of the DLR. I agree. We need line numbers on the Underground, Overground and DLR, just as bus routes have numbers. Maybe they could have an alpha prefix, but it would be much clearer if every route had a unique number. It's particularly confusing to non-locals on the subsurface Underground lines where similar looking trains serve many different routes from the same Circle line stations. I'd prefer letters: DLRA DLRB etc. London Overground was always a terrible name. It should have been given a monicker in the same way that the Jubilee Line was - how about the Dickens Line? And that abbrev.: LOROL! Faites-moi une faveur, mec! LOROL also should have letters to differentiate its several parts. |
East London Line poorly patronised now
In article , d () wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:29:03 +0000 eastender wrote: On 2015-11-18 18:48:13 +0000, e27002 aurora said: On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. This is sad to hear. The Overground has such great potential. But, the speed on its routes are excruciatingly slow. Surely all that investment should allow for a more sprightly system. They can seem slow especially between stations close together but they are main line not underground trains. Even so, there's still no excuse for the **** poor service speeds. I've been in a 378 when the driver was obviously running late and they can get up and go when they need to. The trains arn't at fault - the drivers are. Also quite why the drivers feel they need to creep into every station at 10mph beats me quite frankly. The ELL needs ATO and fast. Are you suggesting the drivers set the timetables? That's what they have to drive the trains to. So perhaps you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
ELL poorly patronised now
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote: On 19/11/2015 01:00, wrote: In article , () wrote: In my experience trains from Dalston in the evening peak become very heavily loaded by the time they leave Whitechapel; the few times I have boarded there I tend to have to wait a long time, sometimes over an hour, for a train where I can get a seat. I cannot stand for more than a few stops now due to bad legs. From Dalston to Shoreditch High Street it's not so crowded, but there's usually a net gain of passengers at each station. They may not be well marked but 378s have priority seats which you should be claiming. How does one go about doing so? Is there a defined protocol apart from just asking? Having recently been hobbling around on a severely sprained ankle but apart from a pronounced limp show no sign of being (albeit it temporarily) disabled and in pain, it's of some passing interest. What if I have acquired the seat and e.g. a pregnant woman boards? It's better now to the point of not worrying whether I can get a seat or not, but the first couple of weeks were not so good. The moquette on the priority seats is different (lighter coloured on 378s IIRC) and there are labels marking them as such on the walls above. n my observation most people are very considerate if asked but there are exceptions. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
East London Line poorly patronised now
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:18:09 -0600
wrote: In article , d () wrote: Even so, there's still no excuse for the **** poor service speeds. I've been in a 378 when the driver was obviously running late and they can get up and go when they need to. The trains arn't at fault - the drivers are. Also quite why the drivers feel they need to creep into every station at 10mph beats me quite frankly. The ELL needs ATO and fast. Are you suggesting the drivers set the timetables? That's what they have to drive the trains to. So perhaps you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction? I imagine there's a certain amount of leaway built into the timetable to allow for the idiotic decision to link it into the southern network with all the vaguaries of the trains there. And I get the feeling the drivers use that leaway to the max. They really do drive dog slow a lot of the time. It really should have been kept as a self contained tube line with a once every 2 min service from highbury to new cross(gate) with better interchange facilities at the 2 southern stations. -- Spud |
East London Line poorly patronised now
In article , d () wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:18:09 -0600 wrote: In article , d () wrote: Even so, there's still no excuse for the **** poor service speeds. I've been in a 378 when the driver was obviously running late and they can get up and go when they need to. The trains arn't at fault - the drivers are. Also quite why the drivers feel they need to creep into every station at 10mph beats me quite frankly. The ELL needs ATO and fast. Are you suggesting the drivers set the timetables? That's what they have to drive the trains to. So perhaps you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction? I imagine there's a certain amount of leaway built into the timetable to allow for the idiotic decision to link it into the southern network with all the vaguaries of the trains there. And I get the feeling the drivers use that leaway to the max. They really do drive dog slow a lot of the time. It really should have been kept as a self contained tube line with a once every 2 min service from highbury to new cross(gate) with better interchange facilities at the 2 southern stations. An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well start somewhere and that is where we are. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
East London Line poorly patronised now
|
ELL poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
On 19.11.15 1:09, Basil Jet wrote:
Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent thoughts of mine. Why doesn't she just call them by their proper names, East London Line and North London Line, rather than desperately trying to look "cool"? |
East London Line poorly patronised now
On 19.11.15 10:34, Offramp wrote:
On Thursday, 19 November 2015 07:19:44 UTC, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent thoughts of mine. My own recent foray around East London presented me with confusing signs to multiple DLR platforms at Stratford, and confusing new signs in Hackney Central / Downs pointing from one half of the station to the other. As I arrived at Hackney from Chingford, robobint said "Change here for trains to Enfield Town" but didn't mention Cheshunt. And the part of the tube map between Seven Sisters and Mile End looks like an explosion in a spaghetti factory, utterly defeating the eyes' ability to plan routes without having to think too hard. I believe that the Overground brand, and to a lesser extent the DLR brand, are obfuscating rather than enlightening. I don't even know what promise the Overground brand is supposed to make. "Underground" means that wherever I may have ended up, I go in here and I can get frequent trains through Central London where I can make one change to another frequent line that will take me home. There are a few exceptions, like Roding Valley, but the Underground largely lives up to that promise. "Overground" - what is that promising? It used to mean orbital travel, for the most part, but that doesn't hold any more. If someone stumbles out of a party at 7am on a Sunday morning and finds himself at Turkey Street station, what does that Overground roundel represent? 2tph to the edge of Zone 1, and probably two changes before he gets home? That's hardly anything for a station to brag about - there are very few stations in Greater London that offer less (Emerson Park is ironically one). Overground is actually a negative concept. Just as the Volkswagen brand means "This is made by the same people who make Audi's, but it would harm the Audi image if we wrote Audi on a car like this", Overground means "This is run by the same people who run the Underground, but it would harm the Underground brand if we wrote Underground on stations that have infrequent service which only touches Zone 1 or avoids it completely. So the Overground brand exists purely to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the Underground. And yet, the Overground management act as if they have an inferiority complex, writing Overground everywhere and doing their best to obliterate the historic line identities as if writing Overground on something is the finest praise imaginable. We need different colours and line names. We need the trains to Chingford to have a different colour on the map from the trains that call at London Fields and Cambridge Heath. And the DLR needs to get line names too, so that the signs at Stratford and on the District Line line guides can start making sense. http://www.metrolondres.es/wp-conten...-mapa-tube.jpg has four different DLR interchanges, and no clue as to which you're supposed to use to get to which part of the DLR. I agree. We need line numbers on the Underground, Overground and DLR, just as bus routes have numbers. Maybe they could have an alpha prefix, but it would be much clearer if every route had a unique number. It's particularly confusing to non-locals on the subsurface Underground lines where similar looking trains serve many different routes from the same Circle line stations. I'd prefer letters: DLRA DLRB etc. London Overground was always a terrible name. It should have been given a monicker in the same way that the Jubilee Line was - how about the Dickens Line? And that abbrev.: LOROL! Faites-moi une faveur, mec! LOROL also should have letters to differentiate its several parts. RER, perhaps? |
East London Line poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
On 2015\11\19 14:55, d wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600 wrote: An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well start somewhere and that is where we are. I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What hope for the south london 3rd rail system. I wonder if you can do the South London 3rd rail network in a day, and if anyone's ever done it? Or even in 2 days? |
ELL poorly patronised now
On 2015\11\18 22:58, wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:44:47 UTC, Basil Jet wrote: On 2015\11\18 21:32, wrote: I don't know why, but I tend to go out via Canada Water and the Jubilee, and return all the way by Overground. Can you try and work out why... it might be important. And exactly which journey are you describing? 60 or 405 Bus from Coulsdon to West Croydon, Overground to Canada Water, Jubilee Line to Stratford. Return from Stratford to West Croydon Overground all the way, changing at Canonbury and Dalston Kingsland. Bus from Croydon to Coulsdon. I presume you mean changing at Canonbury and Dalston Junction. I'm not sure why you don't just walk from DK to DJ. Sometimes do other things, Croydon to Stratford by 75 and 108 bus for example, but that's even slower. I can think of other journeys where I tend to go out and return by different routes, but for no obvious reason. looks at bus map Can I just say that the 455 is the oddest bus route shape I've ever seen. I think there are three separate places where you could get off and walk and be waiting for the same bus further on. But I digress. You never get the train to East Croydon, tram to Elmers End, train to Lewisham, DLR? Would you go that way if Elmers to Lewisham had Bakerloo frequencies? Would you go that way if the DLR was extended to Elmers End? Would you go that way if the tram was extended to Lewisham? Although, I suspect the questions will be redundant as soon as Crossrail runs between Whitechapel and Stratford. |
East London Line poorly patronised now
In article , d () wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600 wrote: An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well start somewhere and that is where we are. I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What hope for the south london 3rd rail system. I didn't say it wasn't a challenge! But then Crossrail 2 is addressing some of the issues. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
East London Line poorly patronised now
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote: On 2015\11\19 14:55, d wrote: On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600 wrote: An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well start somewhere and that is where we are. I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What hope for the south london 3rd rail system. I wonder if you can do the South London 3rd rail network in a day, and if anyone's ever done it? Or even in 2 days? I seem to remember doing an awful lot of it on a railtour once! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
ELL poorly patronised now
On 19/11/2015 23:21, Basil Jet wrote:
looks at bus map Can I just say that the 455 is the oddest bus route shape I've ever seen. I think there are three separate places where you could get off and walk and be waiting for the same bus further on. But I digress. It was clearly designed by the same person responsible for the 100! |
East London Line poorly patronised now
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:14:59PM +0000, Basil Jet wrote:
She might not know the proper name of the North London Line ... It would be a stupid name for TfL to use anyway. Too easy to confuse with the Northern Line. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else. |
ELL poorly patronised now
On 2015-11-20 20:57:58 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. So on the basis of a one journey sample the entire service is "poorly patronised" and an "asset is being wasted"! Hardly a statistically robust analysis and if anyone put forward that level of evidence as proof against something you believed you'd tear them a new posterior in arguing with them. LOL. He's definitely not Spud-u-Like. I looked up the passeger journey figures for the Overground as a whole and they've about tripled since 2010. I couldn't see any breakdown by line - are these figures on line do you know? E. |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
ELL poorly patronised now
On 20/11/2015 09:43, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 19/11/2015 23:21, Basil Jet wrote: looks at bus map Can I just say that the 455 is the oddest bus route shape I've ever seen. I think there are three separate places where you could get off and walk and be waiting for the same bus further on. But I digress. It was clearly designed by the same person responsible for the 100! The 455 enters an Asda car park to stop right outside rather than across the road; then it pulls into a side road which provides access to a retail park (and small housing estate); then it orbits a Sainsbury's and other shops with bus stops on the side roads rather than the main road. It is slower than a direct route would be, but does make a degree of sense in context. The Purley Way area is pretty pedestrian-hostile, and the bus provides a degree of door-to-door access without having to try to cross on foot. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
ELL poorly patronised now
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/11/2015 09:43, Someone Somewhere wrote: On 19/11/2015 23:21, Basil Jet wrote: looks at bus map Can I just say that the 455 is the oddest bus route shape I've ever seen. I think there are three separate places where you could get off and walk and be waiting for the same bus further on. But I digress. It was clearly designed by the same person responsible for the 100! The 455 enters an Asda car park to stop right outside rather than across the road; then it pulls into a side road which provides access to a retail park (and small housing estate); then it orbits a Sainsbury's and other shops with bus stops on the side roads rather than the main road. It is slower than a direct route would be, but does make a degree of sense in context. The Purley Way area is pretty pedestrian-hostile, and the bus provides a degree of door-to-door access without having to try to cross on foot. Yes but that is not the only odd bit. From near Waddon station/Duppas Hill there are 2 -3 stops which are near but it will be quicker to walk between them rather than catch the bus as it goes all around central Croydon. The 407 is similar but less meandering -- Mark |
ELL poorly patronised now
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 20:57:58 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. So on the basis of a one journey sample the entire service is "poorly patronised" and an "asset is being wasted"! Hardly a statistically robust analysis and if anyone put forward that level of evidence as proof against something you believed you'd tear them a new posterior in arguing with them. Its was a normal weekday morning rush hour. Not any kind of public or religious holiday AFAIK. So yes, that one journey sample IMO was a good enough sample. However the service was still frankly **** so I won't be using it again in a hurry. -- Spud |
ELL poorly patronised now
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:10:56 +0000
eastender wrote: On 2015-11-20 20:57:58 +0000, Paul Corfield said: On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. So on the basis of a one journey sample the entire service is "poorly patronised" and an "asset is being wasted"! Hardly a statistically robust analysis and if anyone put forward that level of evidence as proof against something you believed you'd tear them a new posterior in arguing with them. LOL. He's definitely not Spud-u-Like. You should do stand-up. I looked up the passeger journey figures for the Overground as a whole and they've about tripled since 2010. I couldn't see any breakdown by Thats useful - given that the ELL didn't start visiting Highbury until 2011. -- Spud |
ELL poorly patronised now
|
East London Line poorly patronised now
On 18/11/2015 18:48, e27002 aurora wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months. Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset. This is sad to hear. The Overground has such great potential. [...] A Spud rant saying the ELL is poorly patronised based on a single observation shouldn't be mistaken for empirical facts. The line is very well used. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk