On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:49:06 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
No, its closed because TfL don't believe in installing reversing points.
To close 3 miles of the line that could satisfactorily operated otherwise
just because of work at one station is pathetic.

Presumably you DO believe in paying a £6 (or might it be a tenner?)
single-zone fare to fund lots of enhancements.

So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

--
Spud

On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:49:06 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
No, its closed because TfL don't believe in installing reversing points.
To close 3 miles of the line that could satisfactorily operated otherwise
just because of work at one station is pathetic.

Presumably you DO believe in paying a £6 (or might it be a tenner?)
single-zone fare to fund lots of enhancements.

So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that
“wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce
affordable, deliverable budgets.

This group could probably generate a list of 100 or more desirable
enhancements to London’s transport network in a couple of hours – many of
which could deliver more efficient / more economical operations.

But implementing them all would not be possible unless TfL had a much bigger
budget – and that can only come from two sources: taxpayers or passengers.

Personally, my No1 priority would be to double capacity on the 360 and 244
bus routes – but I accept that the best we’re likely to get is an extra 1
bus/hour when contracts are renewed.

Sadly, development of any system all too often turns out to be a tussle
between what’s desirable and what’s affordable within a given budget.

That is the point I am trying to make.

On 16/02/2016 10:22, Water musician wrote:

Personally, my No1 priority would be to double capacity on the 360 and 244
bus routes – but I accept that the best we’re likely to get is an extra 1
bus/hour when contracts are renewed.


Couldn't they improve capacity on those just by ironing out the meanders?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:22:23 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that
“wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce
affordable, deliverable budgets.

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

--
Spud

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:29:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:22:23 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that
“wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce
affordable, deliverable budgets.

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

They'd also need maintenance, as would their signalling, so running
costs would go up too. They'd occasionally fail, or need weekend
closures for maintenance, which would have you bitterly complaining
about the over-complex line.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:48:14 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:29:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
They'd also need maintenance, as would their signalling, so running
costs would go up too. They'd occasionally fail, or need weekend
closures for maintenance, which would have you bitterly complaining
about the over-complex line.

Oh please. 1 set of points that would hardly ever be used would require
minimal maintenance compared to the ones at Dalston and Highbury. Think of
another reason Mr TfL Apologist.

--
Spud

In message , d wrote:
Oh please. 1 set of points that would hardly ever be used would require
minimal maintenance compared to the ones at Dalston and Highbury.

The sort of minimal maintenance that led to the fatal Grayrigg
derailment?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:57:15 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote:
Oh please. 1 set of points that would hardly ever be used would require
minimal maintenance compared to the ones at Dalston and Highbury.

The sort of minimal maintenance that led to the fatal Grayrigg
derailment?

Are LO planning on raising the speed at Shorditch to 125mph then?

--
Spud

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:29:01AM +0000, d wrote:

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

Ahh, so you advocate not bothering to look after the pennies and just
hoping that the pounds will still look after themselves.

That's certainly a novel approach.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave
-- Fergus Henderson

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:35:32 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:29:01AM +0000, d wrote:

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

Ahh, so you advocate not bothering to look after the pennies and just
hoping that the pounds will still look after themselves.

That's certainly a novel approach.

So you think a set of reversing points which would have allowed the line
to run instead of being completely closed anytime there's an issue north of
shadwell is a waste of money and **** the passengers? I guess you must work
for TfL. Either that or its idiot week on here again.

--
Spud