In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

On 18 Oct 2006 02:55:21 -0700, Boltar wrote:

I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open for
peak hour or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green
park the train and passengers just continue to CX. After all,
apart from not having to clean the platforms so often wheres the
gain in closing them?

IIRC the escalators to the Jubilee line platforms at CX were
officially "life-expired" and would have had to have been replaced
for passengers to continue to have been allowed to access the platforms.

Que? The line was only opened in 1977! How old are these escalators?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

The reason is that the benefit to that one passenger is massively
offset by the huge volumes of people with longer wait times and far more
congested travelling conditions on the extension. In short the
disbenefits outweigh the benefits and there is no way on earth that
a business case could be constructed to allow re-opening as per your
suggestion. LU would not be in compliance with the appraisal
methodology set out by TfL / DfT if it was to ignore the disbenefit
of lower service levels on the extension.

This might be convincing if there were not already regular reversers
which tip people out at Green Park and run empty to CX. They would get
there quicker of course and cause fewer delays to the rest of the
service if they didn't have to tip the passengers out at Green Park.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
The reason is that the benefit to that one passenger is massively
offset by the huge volumes of people with longer wait times and far more
congested travelling conditions on the extension. In short the
disbenefits outweigh the benefits and there is no way on earth that
a business case could be constructed to allow re-opening as per your
suggestion. LU would not be in compliance with the appraisal
methodology set out by TfL / DfT if it was to ignore the disbenefit
of lower service levels on the extension.

This might be convincing if there were not already regular reversers
which tip people out at Green Park and run empty to CX. They would get
there quicker of course and cause fewer delays to the rest of the
service if they didn't have to tip the passengers out at Green Park.


Regular? AFAIK there aren't any scheduled CX reversers...

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

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open for
peak hour or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green
park the train and passengers just continue to CX. After all,
apart from not having to clean the platforms so often wheres the
gain in closing them?

IIRC the escalators to the Jubilee line platforms at CX were
officially "life-expired" and would have had to have been replaced
for passengers to continue to have been allowed to access the platforms.

Que? The line was only opened in 1977! How old are these escalators?


29, presumably.

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

In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
The reason is that the benefit to that one passenger is
massively offset by the huge volumes of people with longer wait
times and far more congested travelling conditions on the
extension. In short the disbenefits outweigh the benefits and
there is no way on earth that a business case could be constructed
to allow re-opening as per your suggestion. LU would not be in
compliance with the appraisal methodology set out by TfL / DfT if
it was to ignore the disbenefit of lower service levels on the
extension.

This might be convincing if there were not already regular
reversers which tip people out at Green Park and run empty to CX.
They would get there quicker of course and cause fewer delays to the
rest of the service if they didn't have to tip the passengers out at
Green Park.

Regular? AFAIK there aren't any scheduled CX reversers...

Why have I many times turned up at Green Park to see the first train
advertised as "Stops here" then?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open
for peak hour or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green
park the train and passengers just continue to CX. After all,
apart from not having to clean the platforms so often wheres
the gain in closing them?

IIRC the escalators to the Jubilee line platforms at CX were
officially "life-expired" and would have had to have been
replaced for passengers to continue to have been allowed to access
the platforms.

Que? The line was only opened in 1977! How old are these
escalators?

29, presumably.

So why on earth do they need replacing?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:27 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open
for peak hour or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green
park the train and passengers just continue to CX. After all,
apart from not having to clean the platforms so often wheres
the gain in closing them?

IIRC the escalators to the Jubilee line platforms at CX were
officially "life-expired" and would have had to have been
replaced for passengers to continue to have been allowed to access
the platforms.

Que? The line was only opened in 1977! How old are these
escalators?

29, presumably.

So why on earth do they need replacing?

More than one of the Jubilee line escalators at London Bridge have
been replaced already...

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
This might be convincing if there were not already regular
reversers which tip people out at Green Park and run empty to CX.
They would get there quicker of course and cause fewer delays to the
rest of the service if they didn't have to tip the passengers out at
Green Park.

Regular? AFAIK there aren't any scheduled CX reversers...

Why have I many times turned up at Green Park to see the first train
advertised as "Stops here" then?


Bad luck, I think. They do turn trains at CX when there's disruption,
but not when things are going OK.

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

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

kytelly wrote:

the soon to be abandoned Moorgate to Faringdon Thameslink line.

UTLers don't like good railway alignments to go to waste...

pretty wacky and fantastically unlikely!

running a permanent Steam On The Met service on it

the Crossrail tunnels will come in handy for the new-breed of super rat

they'll have been converted into subterranean canals.

You're so far ahead of me Tom it's scary. Why oh why isn't Peter Hendy
banging on your door begging you to take the position of hyper-farsight
planner?

I don't know! It's not as if i haven't written to him enough times. I'm
getting through green biros like they were going out of fashion.

tom

--
Everybody with a heart votes love

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:04 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

The reason is that the benefit to that one passenger is massively
offset by the huge volumes of people with longer wait times and far more
congested travelling conditions on the extension. In short the
disbenefits outweigh the benefits and there is no way on earth that
a business case could be constructed to allow re-opening as per your
suggestion. LU would not be in compliance with the appraisal
methodology set out by TfL / DfT if it was to ignore the disbenefit
of lower service levels on the extension.

This might be convincing if there were not already regular reversers
which tip people out at Green Park and run empty to CX. They would get
there quicker of course and cause fewer delays to the rest of the
service if they didn't have to tip the passengers out at Green Park.

No, they don't run regular reversers. The only reason why trains would
use the old branch is if there is a serious disruption - usually signal
failure - that means trains cannot proceed on to the extension. You
have regrettably encountered too many of such disruptions. My argument
therefore remains just as convincing.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!