What a load of **** recently.

But why has it nosedived just in the last 2 months? Unfortunate
coincidences, PPP or something else.

And why close the City Northern Line again, last time it was closed for
many months for the stated benefit of a few minutes reduction in journey
time. How many lifetimes would it take for these
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like the "we
are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the service style maths?".

steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like the
"we
are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the service style
maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their logic
however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one you're in
is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the train thats
late,
lets delay you and everyone in your train too! Also note that LU will
put
up with late trains , but god forbid if a train is early as it shall
also suffer the "regulate the service" pantomime. Brilliant! You have
to
admit, its pure genius.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like
the "we are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the
service style maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their
logic however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one
you're in is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the
train thats late, lets delay you and everyone in your train too!
Also note that LU will put up with late trains , but god forbid if
a train is early as it shall also suffer the "regulate the service"
pantomime. Brilliant! You have to admit, its pure genius.

No, just common sense which you clearly don't understand.

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be joining
train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So not only does
train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but trains D, E, F,
etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This means
that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to trains C, D, E,
F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train A.

Holding a train which is running early avoids a long gap developing
behind it, which is essentially the same principle.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:02:43 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

Boltar wrote:
steve wrote:
few minutes to overcome the 4 months inconvenience? Is this like
the "we are holding this (packed full) train to regulate the
service style maths?".

Oh its not just the northern line that happens. I do love their
logic however. They've cancelled a train or the one behind the one
you're in is running late, so aswell as delaying everyone in the
train thats late, lets delay you and everyone in your train too!
Also note that LU will put up with late trains , but god forbid if
a train is early as it shall also suffer the "regulate the service"
pantomime. Brilliant! You have to admit, its pure genius.

No, just common sense which you clearly don't understand.

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be joining
train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So not only does
train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but trains D, E, F,
etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This means
that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to trains C, D, E,
F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train A.

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.




Holding a train which is running early avoids a long gap developing
behind it, which is essentially the same principle.

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.

They don't care. A trains a train to LU. If its packed to the gills and
no one
can get on they don't give a monkies. They'll still hold it back. As
you say,
as long as the lights on the panel look ok they're happy.

B2003

steve wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:02:43 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

If you have trains A, B, C, D etc. running to a timetabled 2-minute
frequency in the peak, and train B gets cancelled, you'll have a
4-minute gap in the service. That gap will get longer and longer
because at least twice the normal number of passengers will be
joining train C at every station, causing longer dwell times. So
not only does train C get continually delayed and overcrowded, but
trains D, E, F, etc. also get delayed as they catch up with the
slower train C.

By holding train A for one minute, producing two 3-minute gaps, you
spread the missing train B's passengers across two trains. This
means that there is a better chance of limiting the delays to
trains C, D, E, F etc. at the cost of one minute's delay to train
A.

Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly
spread out. However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a
train *full* of people.

If people in a "full" train can be persuaded to move down the car a
little to allow more passengers to board, then there is a net benefit to
passengers on that line of holding the train. If you mean literally
full, i.e. crush-loaded with absolutely no room for anyone else and
people waiting on the platform for the next train, then I agree that
ideally the train should depart and be held at the next station if the
crush-loading has eased. But you would need a more flexible signalling
system than currently exists, where AFAIK only certain signals can be
held on red in this way and the rest are automatic. There is still
probably a net benefit in holding the full train, though.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

If people in a "full" train can be persuaded to move down the car a
little to allow more passengers to board, then there is a net benefit to
passengers on that line of holding the train. If you mean literally
full, i.e. crush-loaded with absolutely no room for anyone else and
people waiting on the platform for the next train, then I agree that
ideally the train should depart and be held at the next station if the
crush-loading has eased. But you would need a more flexible signalling
system than currently exists, where AFAIK only certain signals can be
held on red in this way and the rest are automatic. There is still
probably a net benefit in holding the full train, though.
A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly even
more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing staff if
they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point above, on most
lines that run through central London (rather than just to it like the
Met) the train is unlikely to be totally packed throughout its trip so
regulation somewhere is sensible (and I'm sure most people would say
that's fine so long as its after "my" stop)

P

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:49 +0100, Paul wrote:


If people in a "full" train can be persuaded to move down the car a
little to allow more passengers to board, then there is a net benefit to
passengers on that line of holding the train. If you mean literally
full, i.e. crush-loaded with absolutely no room for anyone else and
people waiting on the platform for the next train, then I agree that
ideally the train should depart and be held at the next station if the
crush-loading has eased. But you would need a more flexible signalling
system than currently exists, where AFAIK only certain signals can be
held on red in this way and the rest are automatic. There is still
probably a net benefit in holding the full train, though.
A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly even
more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing staff if
they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point above, on most
lines that run through central London (rather than just to it like the
Met) the train is unlikely to be totally packed throughout its trip so
regulation somewhere is sensible (and I'm sure most people would say
that's fine so long as its after "my" stop)

And that is the point, the system is there to provide a service, so what
is wrong with doing what benefits *most people*. Invariably when a
trains travels into London in the AM peak, if fills on the way in, then
it empties, the trains are mostly held when the train has maximum
capacity. The few that will benefit by holding the train is less than
those that benefit by actually moving it along the track (what they are
supposed to do).

Taking full trains out of service and holding full trains does not benefit
most people but makes the lights on the screen more even. Oh and the
trains are possibly not packed like sardines, but then again they may
become less full if we were told a it will take 30 minutes to get from
Camden to Euston and we would be better off walking - I guess that is not
a priority. This makes me seriously doubt LU has every calculated
whether holding trains or early termination of full trains does benefit
most people.

steve wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

A very good explanation I'd say. Plus at stations further down the
line if passengers see a full train with a long gap behind they are
probably more likely to try and shove on the train with possibly
even more delays as doors have to be shut several times, abusing
staff if they then can't get on etc. And, building on the point
above, on most lines that run through central London (rather than
just to it like the Met) the train is unlikely to be totally
packed throughout its trip so regulation somewhere is sensible
(and I'm sure most people would say that's fine so long as its
after "my" stop)

And that is the point, the system is there to provide a service, so
what is wrong with doing what benefits *most people*. Invariably
when a trains travels into London in the AM peak, if fills on the
way in, then it empties, the trains are mostly held when the train has
maximum capacity. The few that will benefit by holding the train is
less than those that benefit by actually moving it along the track
(what they are supposed to do).

Holding one train for regulatory purposes slightly delays the people in
that train but benefits the people in all following trains, for the
reasons I explained. There is therefore net benefit.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

steve wrote:
Of course it makes the lights on the control panel look evenly spread
out.
However, you failed to explain the logic of holding a train *full* of
people.

Because they enjoy causing more delays e.g. On the District line:

Train crushed-full but waits in the station slighlty longer, a couple
more people squeeze on each door and the doors just manage to close.
Train moves off, people fall back slightly thereby forcing the door
open slighlty so train stops. Repeat several times. Driver announces
"I know its packed in there but don't lean on the doors..... Fine if
your gonna lean on the doors I ain't going no faster than this {in
rather abrubt tone} ... etc.".

A few points

* Net effect is to delay that train and cause the one behind to have to
queue so holding the train is counterproductive

* When it is that packed there is no option but for sevral people to
lean on the doors. Making unpleasant announcements isn't going to
change anything - opening the doors and asking people to leave might do
though

* Why can't the doors lock shut like they do on real trains (eg the new
Desiros on the Hounslow loop)