It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.

But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way
round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria
and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone
currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train.

Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what
I was responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded
to something else.

What I was responding to *was*:

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of
the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the
Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow.

Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train
frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a
cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that
there isn't.
--
Mark Brader "Those who do not understand UNIX
Toronto are condemned to reinvent it."
-- Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Aug 26, 1:18 pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train
frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a
cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that
there isn't.

Oh sorry, I was just looking for a place to drop in my hypothetical,
and neglected to check what your comment was actually about. Mea
culpa.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if you
had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Oh sorry ... Mea culpa.

Thanks.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You often seem quite gracious, in your way."
| --Steve Summit

(Colin Rosenstiel)typed


In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if you
had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

Station dwell times are bound to increase when about half the passengers
on board are changing trains.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really
think you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded?
So if you had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats
per hour.

The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat
after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home.

"John Rowland" typed


Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really
think you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded?
So if you had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats
per hour.

The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat
after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home.


I suspect the greatly increased dwell times at Camden Town might reduce
significantly the number of trains that can use the lines.

A passenger injury or two on changing trains would make staff very wary
about hurrying.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
.com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really
think you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded?
So if you had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number
of seats per hour.

The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have
a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way
home.

Are you seriously saying that the increase in seats per hour will mean
that there is no standing? I accept that it will be reduced but
eliminated altogether? Hardly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
.com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get
a seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people
will be getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really
think you will be able to change to a train that is not crush
loaded? So if you had a seat before you won't in future in the peak
hour.

That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number
of seats per hour.

The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have
a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way
home.

Are you seriously saying that the increase in seats per hour will mean
that there is no standing?

I said no such thing, seriously or flippantly.

I accept that it will be reduced but
eliminated altogether? Hardly.

On Aug 27, 4:08 am, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:
(Colin Rosenstiel)typed

In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:
More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.
If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if you
had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

Station dwell times are bound to increase when about half the passengers
on board are changing trains.



No they won't, because drivers will face discipline if they don't
stick to "target dwell times". So they will shut the doors before
anyone can get on (as they already do at Bank and elsewhere), leaving
anyone who politely lets people off first standing on the platform
indefinitely.

So more vehicles will get through, and create better statistics, but
the people won't be getting where they need to.