On 28 Sep, 00:48, Mizter T wrote:
When trains are running OK then it's far less likely for it to get
overcrowded and temporarily close.

Rebuilding the whole complex including the platforms, which would mean
the station had a bit more give before overcrowding would cause it to
close, would be a massive and very expensive project. And closing when
the station gets overcrowded is a sensible way to avert the risk of
mishaps that could otherwse occur.

Basically the best way to deal with potential overcrowding problems at
stations such as KXSP is for LU to ensure that all their lines are
working properly. The current modernisation plan's aim is to do just
that.

How difficult would it be to "hollow out" the platform side walls to
enable another couple of metres of platform width? (ie. put in some
other kind of roof supports) Doing that and somehow separating the
northern line and the picc lines escaltor routes would go a long way
in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

On Sep 27, 6:21 pm, John B wrote:
****-poor is questionable; overpriced is demonstrably nonsense (given
that farebox income doesn't even cover operational costs, never mind
investment or any kind of profit-making).

The fact that its apparently the most expensive metro in the world,
with from my own experience some of the worst performance (over 5
minute waits for trains in central london in the rush hour - farcical)
I think says it all.

B2003

On Sep 28, 11:38 am, kytelly wrote:
in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

Yeah , but thats just Britain in general for you. It seems to be an
unwritten rule for all customer facing organisations that they must
not ever have enough staff to man all their checkouts/windows/
whatever. How many times have you walked into a bank or supermarket to
see only a third of the checkouts manned with huge queues on the ones
that are working. Its all to save money since theres plenty of people
out there looking for work who'd probably be quite happy to do the
job.

B2003

On 28 Sep, 11:38, kytelly wrote:
On 28 Sep, 00:48, Mizter T wrote:

When trains are running OK then it's far less likely for it to get
overcrowded and temporarily close.

Rebuilding the whole complex including the platforms, which would mean
the station had a bit more give before overcrowding would cause it to
close, would be a massive and very expensive project. And closing when
the station gets overcrowded is a sensible way to avert the risk of
mishaps that could otherwse occur.

Basically the best way to deal with potential overcrowding problems at
stations such as KXSP is for LU to ensure that all their lines are
working properly. The current modernisation plan's aim is to do just
that.

How difficult would it be to "hollow out" the platform side walls to
enable another couple of metres of platform width? (ie. put in some
other kind of roof supports) Doing that and somehow separating the
northern line and the picc lines escaltor routes would go a long way
in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

I guess anything is possible - but it'd probably be spectacularly
expensive! One thing to say is that problems of overcrowding at such
stations does justify the decision made when designing the Jubilee
Line extension that each new station would be very spacious.

Regarding the ticket windows - yes, having them all open would be
useful! I'm not sure how much queueing problems outside the gateline/
fare-paid area contributes to the overcrowding problem that leads to
the station being closed.

One thing that would be really useful would be for TfL/LU to have a
far greater presence on the concourses of mainline stations. Yes,
there's a Travel Information Centre at Victoria, Euston and Liverpool
Street but they're all too small. There should be more (including one
at KX and at St Pancras) and they should be far larger. If they were
signed correctly they could scoop up an awful lot of the confused
tourists who need to have a more attentive service and more time spent
with them, who currently clog up the concourses waiting for tickets at
these stations.

On 28 Sep, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:21 pm, John B wrote:

****-poor is questionable; overpriced is demonstrably nonsense (given
that farebox income doesn't even cover operational costs, never mind
investment or any kind of profit-making).

The fact that its apparently the most expensive metro in the world,
with from my own experience some of the worst performance (over 5
minute waits for trains in central london in the rush hour - farcical)
I think says it all.

B2003

You're evidence that "says it all" is hardly very precise. (a) You've
an "apparent" claim regarding the most expensive metro, yet don't back
it up with evidence. (b) Whilst 5+ minutes wait in central London at
rush hour is far from ideal it's also far from the norm - the
performance data would not back up your claim that it's "farcical".

Your case is far from proven.

On 28 Sep, 12:40, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:38 am, kytelly wrote:

in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

Yeah , but thats just Britain in general for you. It seems to be an
unwritten rule for all customer facing organisations that they must
not ever have enough staff to man all their checkouts/windows/
whatever. How many times have you walked into a bank or supermarket to
see only a third of the checkouts manned with huge queues on the ones
that are working. Its all to save money since theres plenty of people
out there looking for work who'd probably be quite happy to do the
job.

B2003


The critical question is whether consumers are prepared to pay up for
a higher level of service. Many commercial organisations would appear
to judge that they are not.

On 28 Sep, 14:57, Mizter T wrote:
On 28 Sep, 12:40, Boltar wrote:





On Sep 28, 11:38 am, kytelly wrote:

in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

Yeah , but thats just Britain in general for you. It seems to be an
unwritten rule for all customer facing organisations that they must
not ever have enough staff to man all their checkouts/windows/
whatever. How many times have you walked into a bank or supermarket to
see only a third of the checkouts manned with huge queues on the ones
that are working. Its all to save money since theres plenty of people
out there looking for work who'd probably be quite happy to do the
job.

B2003

The critical question is whether consumers are prepared to pay up for
a higher level of service. Many commercial organisations would appear
to judge that they are not.

True but in the context of KX, having only two windows open in the
main ticket hall as they had at 19:00 last night is a bit dumb with
all the lost would be passengers they have circulating about

On 28 Sep, 15:23, kytelly wrote:
in cutting perceived overcrowding. Also making sure that all the
ticket windows are manned in peak times which I would have thought a
no brainer!

The critical question is whether consumers are prepared to pay up for
a higher level of service. Many commercial organisations would appear
to judge that they are not.

True but in the context of KX, having only two windows open in the
main ticket hall as they had at 19:00 last night is a bit dumb with
all the lost would be passengers they have circulating about

However, I don't think KX has ever been closed because of overcrowding
*in the ticket hall* or *at the top of the escalators* - it's always
due to problems at platform level. So counter-intuitively, increasing
staffing in the booking office not only wouldn't do anything to get
rid of the overcrowding, it might even make it worse.

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

On Sep 28, 2:55 pm, Mizter T wrote:
You're evidence that "says it all" is hardly very precise. (a) You've
an "apparent" claim regarding the most expensive metro, yet don't back
it up with evidence. (b) Whilst 5+ minutes wait in central London at

My latest monthly travelcard was 127 quid (minus the not
inconsiderable number of refund vouchers I'd received). I visited Kiev
last month, a monthly travelcard for the whole system there was the
equivalent of 3 quid. Even taking into account lower wages there
(probably a 5th to 10th of the UK) its still bloody cheap. Paris is
cheap too and so is NYC though I can't remember the exact costs.

rush hour is far from ideal it's also far from the norm - the

BS. Do you ever travel in the rush hour? Its *very* often the norm on
the lines I use - Circle/Met , Northern and Piccadilly. This morning
there were probably 100 people waiting on the platform because of yet
another cancellation and then once the train had arrived we went
halfway to the next station and stopped for 3 or 4 minutes. No
information from Mr Driver of course , probably too busy writing a fan
letter to Uncle Bob.

performance data would not back up your claim that it's "farcical".

Your case is far from proven.

I don't need to prove it to anyone , I use the system every day. My
own personal experience is enough for me.

B2003

On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, Mizter T wrote:
The critical question is whether consumers are prepared to pay up for
a higher level of service. Many commercial organisations would appear
to judge that they are not

Then why do they bother paying for facilities they don't use?

B2003