NM writes
So as I suspected you can't refute his claim.

That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading a
simple web page.

--
Dave

Dave wrote:
NM writes

As was said Thameslink publish a timetable, thank you for the detail
about how they do it but that changes nothing, they have ample
opportunity to ensure they meet their own criteria and if they don't
'tis their fault.


It's a shame that you didn't actually bother to read and understand what
I wrote. This problem of yours is becoming a big drawback in trying to
sustain a sensible debate.

You only read what you want to read, make no attempt to learn what you
don't already know and decline to respond to questions where this would
expose your ignorance.

And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this will
not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for keeping to
their own timetable.

NM writes
That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading a
simple web page.


Pounds = Euro ?? and I can't read?

I fond it quite amusing that you persist in claiming that you are
correct when even a cursory examination of that web page highlights your
error - you simply just didn't read it properly.

Never mind, it's quite amusing watching you making a complete arse of
yourself.

--
Dave

NM writes
And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this will
not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for keeping
to their own timetable.

*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable? Just
not bother to run any trains at all?

What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?

What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?

There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company. You also appear to
have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).

But your lack of clue fails to surprise me. Never mind, stick to the
Nijnte books eh? You might learn something.

--
Dave

In article , Matthew Malthouse
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:20:49 +0100 Michael Bell wrote:
} In article , Dave
} wrote:
} Roger H. Bennett writes
} Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
} Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
} route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
} because it avoids central London.
}
} I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity
} trains. A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited
} stops, could provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings
} Cross, changing to the Tube, then changing again at another London
} terminus.
}
} Those are what are what is meant by 'regional' journeys.
}
} We already have Thameslink services from Brighton to Bedford. When the
} Bedford electrification is extended northwards, as surely it must be
} in the end, I would think that the Brighton service would follow, so
} we would have a service Brighton, London, St Albans, Luton, Bedord,
} Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield. That seems to have reasonable
} commercial potential.

I wonder how much of that traffic actually crosses London? And how much
would cross London if such an extention were to happen?

More subtly how much crosses for Gatwick and how much goes all the way?

Resonable question! But people from say, Brighton, will not
all want to get off at the same point in London, they will get off
some at Croydon, some Farringdon,,,etc and as they get off, they might
as well be replaced by people getting on to go to Luton, Sheffield,
etc. Running straight through central London isn't just a benefit to
passengers, it also avoids the need to supply crew in central London,
always a problem, and avoids the need to reverse trains in terminal
stations.

Michael Bell

--

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:
Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.

From my expirience, the frequent service only "doesn't matter" on
paper. In the real world, Thameslink seem to develop huge gaps in the
service on an alarmingly regular basis

Quite.

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".

It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

Peter Smyth

Dave wrote:

NM writes

That's rich, coming from someone who is speaking from a position of
ignorance - especially as it's someone who has difficulty in reading
a simple web page.


Pounds = Euro ?? and I can't read?


I fond it quite amusing that you persist in claiming that you are
correct when even a cursory examination of that web page highlights your
error - you simply just didn't read it properly.

Never mind, it's quite amusing watching you making a complete arse of
yourself.

Please explain, AFAIUI you claimed, using the AA website you quoted,
that fuel was more expensive in the Netherlands than in the UK. the
reason you got it wrong was that the AA website quoted, quite clearly,
the price in Euros, you failed to take that on board and in order to
cover up your mistake you now try to accuse me of lack of comprehension
skills. Carry on, the truth is plain to see for anyone who can be bothered.

Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake? If anyone is making an arse
of themselves it's you.

I live in the Netherlands and travel quite often to the UK by car, van
or aircraft, don't you think I'm in a better position than you to know
accurately about the fuel cost differential?

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Dave wrote:

NM writes


As was said Thameslink publish a timetable, thank you for
the detail about how they do it but that changes nothing,
they have ample opportunity to ensure they meet their own
criteria and if they don't 'tis their fault.


It's a shame that you didn't actually bother to read and
understand what I wrote. This problem of yours is
becoming a big drawback in trying to sustain a sensible
debate.

You only read what you want to read, make no attempt to
learn what you don't already know and decline to respond
to questions where this would expose your ignorance.


And you can argue black is white until the cows come home
but this will not change the simple fact that Thameslink
are responsibe for keeping to their own timetable.


They might be reponsible for it, but that's very different to *"Thameslink
publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they can't abide by
it."* isn't it?


No.

Dave wrote:

NM writes

And you can argue black is white until the cows come home but this
will not change the simple fact that Thameslink are responsibe for
keeping to their own timetable.


*sigh*

It's a shame that you are so blinkered and unwilling to learn.

What can they do if the timetable foisted upon them is unworkable?
Refuse to publish an unworkable timetable.
Just
not bother to run any trains at all?
Best idea yet.

What can they do if the infrastructure (tracks, signalling, power
supply) is unreliable?
Make sure they are.

What can they do if another company's train makes the Thameslink train
late?
See that there is no recurrence.

There are many reasons for trains not running to time that are totally
outside of the control of the operating company.
Yeah, everyones fault but theirs.
You also appear to
have selective memory, apparently forgetting that I said "What
Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains its trains and systems so
that the timetable is achievable." Thameslink can't be held responsible
if a Midland Main Line train breaks down and delays a Thameslink train
(or for that matter a Connex, SouthCentral, Virgin, Gatwick Express,
Thames Trains or SWT train either).
Why not. I, as a punter hold them responsible, my contract is with them,
if others **** them up it's up to them to take whatever redress they see
fit.

But your lack of clue fails to surprise me. Never mind, stick to the
Nijnte books eh? You might learn something.

The only thing I have learnt from you is that you are a PT apologist. PT
is pants.

Peter Smyth wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:38:57 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:


In article , Huge

wrote:

Thameslink publish the timetable. It's entirely their fault if they
can't abide by it.

Absolutely. But with such a frequent service it doesn't really *matter*.

From my expirience, the frequent service only "doesn't matter" on

paper. In the real world, Thameslink seem to develop huge gaps in the
service on an alarmingly regular basis

Quite.

Especially with bull**** like only 2 trains an hour northbound from
London Bridge in the evening rush, and those "all stations".


It is not really Thameslink's fault that there are not enough paths available
through London Bridge in the rush hour.

Peter Smyth


Then don't sell the ****ing tickets if they can't deliver.