|
Frequent service maps...
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Tom Anderson wrote: On 19 Jan 2005 wrote: ...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the London Connections map. Ooh, where abouts? And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at: http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than District Line services off-peak? Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place - Bexleyheath line greyed out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly. Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and Bromley very carefully... Nick |
Frequent service maps...
Nick:
Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place - Bexleyheath line greyed out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly. Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and Bromley very carefully... I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has 4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the terminus for two of those trains (IIRC). That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively served by two infrequent routes. Jonn |
Frequent service maps...
"Nick" wrote in message
... "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Tom Anderson wrote: On 19 Jan 2005 wrote: ...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the London Connections map. Ooh, where abouts? And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at: http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than District Line services off-peak? Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or otherwise) - now, get over it!! - Bexleyheath line greyed out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly. Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and Bromley very carefully... Nick Your name rhymes with *Dick* |
Frequent service maps...
"A H" wrote in message
... "Nick" wrote in message ... ... Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the thread. You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or otherwise) - now, get over it!! TfL don't have a problem describing this area as Kent: http://www.tfl-ticketlocator.co.uk/geographical-map.asp So why do you feel so threatened by it? I think it's quite reasonable to refer to the Kent addresses within the Greater London administrative area as "metropolitan Kent". Far more descriptive than the bland and somewhat meaningless description of "south London" which could mean just about anywhere south of the Thames. I don't know why you're getting so upset about it anyway. If the people around here want to describe themselves as in London/Kent/Sussex/Surrey/Whatever, what do you care? - Bexleyheath line greyed out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly. Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and Bromley very carefully... Nick Your name rhymes with *Dick* How old are you again? Nick |
Frequent service maps...
I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has 4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the terminus for two of those trains (IIRC). That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively served by two infrequent routes. I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away the mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge service. The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South London-metropolitan Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey Metro) is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains off-peak would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read very recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to Victoria. Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument (i.e. metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and the operating companies. Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand the relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA. |
Frequent service maps...
"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
... I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has 4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the terminus for two of those trains (IIRC). That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively served by two infrequent routes. I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away the mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge service. Yes, agreed that map needs more detail to be of any real use. The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South London-metropolitan Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey Metro) is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains off-peak would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read very recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to Victoria. The original IKF specification had off-peak trains on the Bexleyheath trains (4tph) going to Cannon Street, with another 2tph going to Victoria (if I remember right). In modifying their plans, the SRA moved the Victoria trains to run to and from Sidcup only and gave the Bexleyheath line 2tph Charing X and 2tph Cannon St. Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument (i.e. metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and the operating companies. Maybe, but it appears that the SRA consultation revealed the local users of these stations strongly opposed such plans. As one of the London-based transport bodies said at the time (LTUC?), TfL's desire with single destinations for a particular line was being given too much priority. Most people want to go to Charing Cross, not Cannon St or Victoria. Clearly presented timetables, signs and announcements are what are needed to avoid confusion, not the inconvenience of making many people change trains to make the timetable "simple". Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand the relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA. Well, I hope the current situation of multiple destinations from the stations around here remains. It's a shame TfL haven't carried out a similar consultation around here before they adopted their "high frequency, single destination" stance. I remain totally convinced that this is something of a distration; 4tph (reasonably spaced across the hour) is perfectly adequate for off-peak sevices to stations around here. What we need are simple ticketing arrangement (well, we have a Travelcard, that does nicely), clear timetables and station displays (much more could be done on this), a much improved station environment to encourage users in the first place, and lastly much better maintenance and cleaing of the trains themselves. The Networkers that many of us travel to work on are in a pretty grim state, with fairly high levels of vandalism. This must be a big deterant to rail travel. Recently, we've seen the introduction of the "tube style" 376 trains that are quite shockingly uncomfortable for any signicant journey (45 mins from Dartford to Charing X is not pleasant). |
Frequent service maps...
"A H" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Tom Anderson wrote: On 19 Jan 2005 wrote: ...have begun appearing in certain tube stations in place of the London Connections map. Ooh, where abouts? And how similar are they to the Overground Network map at: http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf...etwork-map.pdf I'd like to see this map. It'll be good for people to see that the Underground isn't the be-all and end-all of frequent services. For example, doesn't Wimbledon have more trains to Waterloo (16tph) than District Line services off-peak? Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? Metropolitan Kent is a rather good description IMO. I live in Bexley borough and don't know anyone who wouldn't describe their location as "in Kent" so I would suggest you are somewhat out of touch with feelings around here. You live in metropolitan *Greater London*, not Kent (metropolitan or otherwise) - now, get over it!! What are you, the London branding police? You're the one who needs to get over it by the sound of it. Everybody knows most people in Bexley and Bromley describe themselves as in Kent. If you were more confident in the benefits of a Greater London area, you would not appear to be so afraid to let them carry on doing so. - Bexleyheath line greyed out implying less than 4 trains an hour? Orpington greyed out incorrectly. Only 8 tph to Dartford? (I think Dartford is 12tph off-peak during the day). Whoever drew that map didn't examine train services in Bexley and Bromley very carefully... Nick Your name rhymes with *Dick* And you hide behind two anonymous initials. Hmm. What area of "London" do you live in, by the way? It must be a million miles away from Bexley as you seem to have no understanding (or indeed tolerance) of the mood around here. |
KENT KENT KENT was Frequent service maps...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote:
"A H" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the thread. How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'? metropolitan *Greater London* Tautology. So why do you feel so threatened by it? Because Kent LOVES terrr and HATES freedom. tom -- In Milan, [traffic lights] are instructions, in Rome suggestions, and in Naples Christmas decorations. -- James Dowden |
KENT KENT KENT was Frequent service maps...
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote: "A H" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the thread. How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'? How about 'The London Boroughs Currently Known As Kent By Local Residents?' ;-) metropolitan *Greater London* Tautology. What about the villages in the SE corner of Bromley borough; not exactly metropolitan? So why do you feel so threatened by it? Because Kent LOVES terrr and HATES freedom. Ummm. |
Frequent service maps...
|
KENT KENT KENT was Frequent service maps...
Rich Mallard wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote: "A H" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the thread. How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'? How about 'The London Boroughs Currently Known As Kent By Local Residents?' ;-) metropolitan *Greater London* Tautology. What about the villages in the SE corner of Bromley borough; not exactly metropolitan? Greater London's Metropolitan Kent featuring Downe And Friends. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
KENT KENT KENT was Frequent service maps...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Rich Mallard wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nick wrote: "A H" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... Yeah, that ON map could be quite handy if it was more accurate. The metropolitan Kent section is all over the place You're obsessed with this 'metropolitan Kent' notion aren't you? I'm not the one making a special post about it, completely unrelated to the thread. How about 'The London Boroughs Formerly Known As Kent'? How about 'The London Boroughs Currently Known As Kent By Local Residents?' ;-) How about 'The London Boroughs Which We Should Probably Just Give Back To Kent - And Good Riddance To Them - Just To Stop Them Whingeing' :). metropolitan *Greater London* Tautology. What about the villages in the SE corner of Bromley borough; not exactly metropolitan? These are irridentae and i eschew them. tom -- Yulava? Niob Yam! |
Frequent service maps...
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , (Rich Mallard) wrote: I live in Bexley borough and don't know anyone who wouldn't describe their location as "in Kent" I don't know anyone who would say that Reading is in Berkshire... I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire You still don't know anyone who would say that Reading is in Berkshire but you know know *of* 7 people who would say it :-)) |
Frequent service maps...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:52:17 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote: I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire I'd have said that, too. Where do people normally think it is located? Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Frequent service maps...
Neil Williams wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 22 Jan 2005:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:52:17 -0000, "Stimpy" wrote: I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire I'd have said that, too. Where do people normally think it is located? I know, I was wondering that, as I, too, would have said it was in Berkshire. Mind you, I was born in Abingdon, Berkshire, and these days it's in Oxfordshire, so these things do move. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 2 January 2005 |
Frequent service maps...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:52:17 -0000, "Stimpy" wrote: I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire I'd have said that, too. Where do people normally think it is located? I'm thinking the original assertion was some sort of deep zen koan, the point of which we're all missing. The Reading in Pennsylvania is also in Berks - but there, it seems to actually be called Berks County, not Berkshire. Funny old world. Well, funny New World, actually, but YKWIM. tom -- if you can't beat them, build them |
Frequent service maps...
|
Frequent service maps...
Paul Cummins wrote:
I don't know anyone who would say that Reading is in Berkshire... ^^^ not Ahhhhh... makes sense now ;-) |
Frequent service maps...
In message , Nick
writes I don't know why you're getting so upset about it anyway. If the people around here want to describe themselves as in London/Kent/Sussex/Surrey/Whatever, what do you care? Potential house value? -- Clive. |
Frequent service maps...
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Neil Williams wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 22 Jan 2005: "Stimpy" wrote: I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire I'd have said that, too. Where do people normally think it is located? I know, I was wondering that, as I, too, would have said it was in Berkshire. Indeed it was, so the six people and you were right. But now Berkshire's no longer a single county - West Berkshire is, but the eastern half (starting with Reading) has been broken into several entities. Mind you, I was born in Abingdon, Berkshire, and these days it's in Oxfordshire, so these things do move. And until tomorrow* I hadn't noticed that Caversham's no longer in Oxfordshire. * Assuming you're reading this before your timezone catches up... |
Frequent service maps...
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote: Neil Williams wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 22 Jan 2005: "Stimpy" wrote: I did a quick test of this in the pub at lunchtime. I asked 6 people which county Reading was in and they all said Berkshire I'd have said that, too. Where do people normally think it is located? I know, I was wondering that, as I, too, would have said it was in Berkshire. Indeed it was, so the six people and you were right. But now Berkshire's no longer a single county - West Berkshire is, but the eastern half (starting with Reading) has been broken into several entities. West Berkshire is *not* a county. It's a unitary district, as also are Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, Windsor & Maidenhead, and Slough. (Strictly, some of them are unitary boroughs.) Berkshire still exists as a defined area for which certain local government services are managed county-wide by one of the districts or by a separate body. Thus there is still the Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service, Berkshire Record Office (managed by Reading), Joint Strategic Planning Unit (based in Maidenhead). Many other organisations cover the county area of Berkshire, such as Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service. Berkshire is still a county but without a county council. Mind you, I was born in Abingdon, Berkshire, and these days it's in Oxfordshire, so these things do move. And until tomorrow* I hadn't noticed that Caversham's no longer in Oxfordshire. Caversham has been part of Reading and therefore in Berkshire for many years. I had thought it was done as part of the 1974 changes (when Abingdon transferred to Oxfordshire), but I read some reports that most of Caversham became part of Reading in 1911. * Assuming you're reading this before your timezone catches up... ... but don't forget that UTC is based on the Greenwich meridian, so we don't catch up with anyone. You just jumped the gun in your cheeky colonial way. :-) -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Frequent service maps...
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk