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.
Furthermore, at the stations north of Camden Town that I go to
sometimes, I never really see people waiting for a train; everyone
seems to get on whatever train shows up. It is faster, and you never
know where a Northern Line train might end up anyway.

I think we can all agree that something needs to be done at Camden
Town, even if the current service pattern is upheld. I'd rather not
see a tower office block on top of the station either, but if it's in
the style of the rest of Camden Town, and has the same type of shops
etc., I really don't mind.

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

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.

(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.

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.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:04:03 -0700, MIG
wrote:

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.

A nice rant, spoiled only by its lack of grounding in the facts.

Let me translate into English: you once couldn't get on a train at
Bank because, in your opinion, the driver shut the doors too early.

On Aug 27, 10:49 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:04:03 -0700, MIG
wrote:





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.

A nice rant, spoiled only by its lack of grounding in the facts.

Let me translate into English: you once couldn't get on a train at
Bank because, in your opinion, the driver shut the doors too early.-


No. Many many times. I have also had a written respons from LU
confirming that it is their policy. Is that English enough for you?