Stevie wrote:

Rob wrote:
I heard something on the news that AEG, new owners of the Millenium
Dome have bought a big share in the Thames Clipper service and are
looking to buy six new boats next year to expand the service. Anyone
know any more detail?

I wonder if this means theyll use the pier at the Dome as a stop on the
Woolwich service?

This weeks 'The Wharf' has the story - http://tinyurl.com/gxmgp

However the story also says that at present there's no ferry pier
serving the Dome. Have they taken away the one that was put in for the
Millennium then?

Ok - this weeks Wharf has a follow-up to this story:

http://tinyurl.com/payj8

"HERE'S no pressure to build a new pier at the Dome - because there's
already one there.

The unused Millennium Pier at North Greenwich is to be reopened next
summer to serve an expanded Thames Clippers ferry service."

And

"The company is negotiating with Transport for London to get the
service included in the Oyster card scheme, although no agreement has
yet been reached."

The unused Millennium Pier at North Greenwich is to be reopened next
summer to serve an expanded Thames Clippers ferry service."

And

"The company is negotiating with Transport for London to get the
service included in the Oyster card scheme, although no agreement has
yet been reached."

Sounds promising, though I suppose they could just mean that the
Clipper fare could be deducted from pre pay, rather than being able to
use a Travelcard

Rob

The unused Millennium Pier at North Greenwich is to be reopened next
summer to serve an expanded Thames Clippers ferry service."

And

"The company is negotiating with Transport for London to get the
service included in the Oyster card scheme, although no agreement has
yet been reached."

Sounds promising, though I suppose they could just mean that the
Clipper fare could be deducted from pre pay, rather than being able to
use a Travelcard

Rob

Neil Williams wrote:
Rob wrote:

I hope the association with the Dome doesnt end up cursing the Clipper
service

As do I - used it once or twice and it's great. It would be good if
TfL bought a load of new boats themselves and made it a full part of
the Travelcard system.

The Assembly members at the GLA have a habit of bringing this up with
TfL, forgetting about it and repeating the cycle every year or so. The
essential point is that Thames river boat services are expensive to run,
and if TfL either ran them itself or allowed the use of Travelcards, the
subsidy per passenger would be very high (much more so than for any
other mode) and it would not be good value for money.

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact on
the cost of running the services, although I admit to some trouble
understanding this.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
I hope the association with the Dome doesnt end up cursing the Clipper
service

As do I - used it once or twice and it's great. It would be good if
TfL bought a load of new boats themselves and made it a full part of
the Travelcard system.

The Assembly members at the GLA have a habit of bringing this up with
TfL, forgetting about it and repeating the cycle every year or so. The
essential point is that Thames river boat services are expensive to run,
and if TfL either ran them itself or allowed the use of Travelcards, the
subsidy per passenger would be very high (much more so than for any
other mode) and it would not be good value for money.

Who subsidises them currently, then?

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact on
the cost of running the services, although I admit to some trouble
understanding this.

Extra fuel? Longer journey times so extra boats required?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact
on the cost of running the services, although I admit to some
trouble understanding this.

How about this:

1. With a given fleet, it's difficult to run a fixed-interval timetable
unless you slow everything down to the speed of the slowest boats, i.e.
the ones that are running against the strongest tides. So either the
timetable is highly variable (not good for attracting customers), or
it's quite slow (ditto).

2. In the upper tidal reaches, above Hammersmith Bridge, the water at
low tide is quite shallow, which means that you have to use small boats,
which limits capacity and therefore revenue. That's one reason why
there are no commuter services upstream from Putney.

These two factors affect revenue rather than costs, but the effect is
the same: the services need a large subsidy to make a profit for the
operators.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact on
the cost of running the services, although I admit to some trouble
understanding this.

In addition to the points already made, the strong tides and big
differences between high and low water require expensive, substantial
piers and relatively slow docking procedures.

In contrast, the very low tide-fall in Venice (normally only a few
inches) means that piers can be very lightweight and docking takes just
a few seconds, resulting in much faster and more efficient services.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:

In contrast, the very low tide-fall in Venice (normally only a few
inches) means that piers can be very lightweight and docking takes just
a few seconds, resulting in much faster and more efficient services.

The Clippers are already damn quick - their staff seem to be very
skilled at docking quickly.

Despite the high fares and non-regular-interval timetable, they don't
seem to have a problem attracting passengers, either. Quite a few of
them are corporate, going to meetings at Canary Wharf and such (I know
- I've done it!)

Neil

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati
writes

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact on
the cost of running the services, although I admit to some trouble
understanding this.

In addition to the points already made, the strong tides and big
differences between high and low water require expensive, substantial
piers and relatively slow docking procedures.

In contrast, the very low tide-fall in Venice (normally only a few
inches) means that piers can be very lightweight and docking takes just
a few seconds, resulting in much faster and more efficient services.

--
Paul Terry

Interesting points, although its never struck me as taking a
particularly long time to get on the boat. Its a slow boarding time
getting on to the DLR at Bank from street level.

Rob

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati
writes

I'm told that the tidal nature of the Thames has an adverse impact on
the cost of running the services, although I admit to some trouble
understanding this.

In addition to the points already made, the strong tides and big
differences between high and low water require expensive, substantial
piers and relatively slow docking procedures.

In contrast, the very low tide-fall in Venice (normally only a few
inches) means that piers can be very lightweight and docking takes just
a few seconds, resulting in much faster and more efficient services.

--
Paul Terry

Just checking out the timetable and Blackfriars to Canary Wharf by boat
works out at 19 mins. By Tube/DLR - between 19 and 23 minutes. River
services usually seem on time when Ive used them for this journey.

Rob