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. Also, with the MML sharing
with them, 5 minutes can miss a path, which causes it to wait for the
next one, which makes the delay longer, which makes the already bad
congestion on the service even worse.

---
This message has come to an end.
Please exit to your left.

*UK Dark Ride and UK Theme Park Trip Reports*
http://www.lewstube.fsnet.co.uk

Remove my clothing to reply.

Cast_Iron wrote:
Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.


I make him 100% right.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...

I agree. And anyway it would be impractical: there are too many possible
destinations. A better target for long-distance journeys via London
would be to reduce two changes to one, by running trains across the
centre to a terminus the other side. Brussels does this, apart from
Eurostar - trains to the north start from the south station, and vice
versa.

As, indeed, does Dublin. Southbound from Connolly to Rosslare and some
northbound trains from Pearse. Unfortunately the Irish equivalent is not
quite on the same scale as Brussels!

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that doesn't mean it's
true.

Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can, whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?

"Lew 1 (from the UK)" writes:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:57:03 +0000 (UTC), (David
Marshall) wrote:

[18 lines snipped]


As has been said elsewhere, Thameslink should be running to the
timetable. If they can't do that, then the timetable needs to be
changed.

Precisely.


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

"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".


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

NM wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Huge wrote:


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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.

Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?

You seem to assume that the railway has no external influences.

Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


NM wrote:


Cast_Iron wrote:


Huge wrote:



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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.


Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?


You seem to assume that the railway has no external influences.


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

NM wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:

NM wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


NM wrote:


Cast_Iron wrote:


Huge wrote:



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


Wrong - as usual.



I make him 100% right.


You would, just as one sheep follows another, but that
doesn't mean it's true.


Of course it's true, prove to me different if you can,
whose fault is
it, the passengers (sorry customers)?


You seem to assume that the railway has no external
influences.


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

I can, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to think about things.

Dave wrote:




What Thameslink have to ensure is that it maintains it trains and
systems so that the timetable is achievable. What it can't do is make
other operators

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.