On Apr 11, 10:48 am, Boltar wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:10 am, Railist wrote:

sense of urgency. The tube was then held at Victoria to regulate the
service, but more of that another time.

Ah yes , the famous regulate the service phrase that LU so love. Which
basically translates to "we can't run a decent service so to cover up
our incompetence we're going to delay you even more".

B2003

Possibly true Boltar. There are a number of reasons why regulating the
service may be needed, such as; the train behind has had an incident
or is going to slowly, the train in question is going to fast or even
on the odd occasion is early!

Headways are also a Key Performance Indicator so regulating the
service is quite important, especially if the train being held isn't
very full, but the one behind is packed. Holding very full trains is a
bit of a hot potato, do you work to achieve the best customer service,
by getting people where they want in a packed train, or hold it for
longer to meet targets, when no more people can get on!

On Apr 11, 4:01*pm, chunky munky
wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:48 am, Boltar wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:10 am, Railist wrote:

sense of urgency. The tube was then held at Victoria to regulate the
service, but more of that another time.

Ah yes , the famous regulate the service phrase that LU so love. Which
basically translates to "we can't run a decent service so to cover up
our incompetence we're going to delay you even more".

B2003

Possibly true Boltar. There are a number of reasons why regulating the
service may be needed, such as; the train behind has had an incident
or is going to slowly, the train in question is going to fast or even
on the odd occasion is early!

Headways are also a Key Performance Indicator so regulating the
service is quite important, especially if the train being held isn't
very full, but the one behind is packed. Holding very full trains is a
bit of a hot potato, do you work to achieve the best customer service,
by getting people where they want in a packed train, or hold it for
longer to meet targets, when no more people can get on!

TfL will go for targets based on arrival of vehicles every time,
regardless of arrival of people, that is absolutely clear.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:01:50 -0700 (PDT), chunky munky
wrote:

Possibly true Boltar. There are a number of reasons why regulating the
service may be needed, such as; the train behind has had an incident
or is going to slowly, the train in question is going to fast or even
on the odd occasion is early!

Indeed. If there are three trains and the gap between the first two is
2 minutes and between the second and third is 10 minutes, the longer
gap will keep getting longer as fewer people are getting on the second
train and more on the third train, causing longer dwell times for the
third train than the second.

Yes, it's irritating when you're on the train that gets delayed, but I
understand the need for it.

I just wish the Piccadilly line would get held at Green Park or
Piccadilly Circus rather than *always* at Hyde Park Corner!

In message , James Farrar
writes

Indeed. If there are three trains and the gap between the first two is
2 minutes and between the second and third is 10 minutes, the longer
gap will keep getting longer as fewer people are getting on the second
train and more on the third train, causing longer dwell times for the
third train than the second.

Yes, it's irritating when you're on the train that gets delayed, but I
understand the need for it.

I just wish the Piccadilly line would get held at Green Park or
Piccadilly Circus rather than *always* at Hyde Park Corner!

Sadly, HPC is where the special 'balanced headway' signal is located so
that's where it's done automatically.

It's irritating for drivers too if that's any help (no? I thought not!)
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On 11 Apr, 16:01, chunky munky wrote:
Headways are also a Key Performance Indicator so regulating the
service is quite important, especially if the train being held isn't
very full, but the one behind is packed. Holding very full trains is a
bit of a hot potato, do you work to achieve the best customer service,
by getting people where they want in a packed train, or hold it for
longer to meet targets, when no more people can get on!

I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't for the fact its usually done
when the service is buggered and you've already had to wait ages for
the train to show up in the first place. So you end up doubly delayed.

B2003

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Railist wrote:

Just what is it with London Buses and ME?

It isn't. It's me as well!

According to the Mobile Journey Planner, there is a 417 due at 0024. The
countdown timer at the stop shows that it will be there in "10 mins".
Again I do the county thing - 3 x Route 57, 2 x Route 333, 1 x Route 59,
2 x Route 137, etc. etc. At 0034, the 417 is 'Due', and a 133 is in '3
minutes'. The 133 arrives 3 minutes later. Still no sign of the 417. It
eventually arrives five minutes after being 'Due'. I get home at 0059.

Normal service, then.

This is why i get so furious when people on here tell me that buses are a
perfectly good way to travel, that they can get from Pinner to London
Bridge in ten minutes with cast-iron reliability, etc. It's not true. It's
just not true. Bus travel is a lottery, and nothing more.

My completely serious suggestion would be to buy a bike. I've got one, and
avoid all forms of public transport like the plague. As a result, i get
where i'm going faster and more reliably, and much more enjoyably, than
any travelcard monkey making the same trip. Yes, faster - door to door, i
can even beat the Victoria line to work!

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On 11 Apr, 13:44, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Railist wrote:
Just what is it with London Buses and ME?

It isn't. It's me as well!


Most of the time it isn't me.


According to the Mobile Journey Planner, there is a 417 due at 0024. The
countdown timer at the stop shows that it will be there in "10 mins".
Again I do the county thing - 3 x Route 57, 2 x Route 333, 1 x Route 59,
2 x Route 137, etc. etc. At 0034, the 417 is 'Due', and a 133 is in '3
minutes'. The 133 arrives 3 minutes later. Still no sign of the 417. It
eventually arrives five minutes after being 'Due'. I get home at 0059.

Normal service, then.


Well, no. Much of the time it works very well. I do broadly find the
bus service in London to be pretty reliable. When I get a moment later
I'll go over Railist's journey and look for ways of improving it -
specifically I'd imagine that a bit of bus hopping might be an idea
for this journey.


This is why i get so furious when people on here tell me that buses are a
perfectly good way to travel, that they can get from Pinner to London
Bridge in ten minutes with cast-iron reliability, etc. It's not true. It's
just not true. Bus travel is a lottery, and nothing more.


I suspect in part that's me your getting furious with, though those
views aren't an accurate reflection of what I think.

For longer journeys I wouldn't favour the bus if there's a rail
alternative, but for some journeys taking the bus can be as good if
not better than making a more convoluted rail journey.

There are a whole host of factors with regards to how good bus travel
will be, including when the journey is being made and the potential
for bus hopping along that route which can dramatically speed things
up. Of course to take advantage of this you need some local knowledge.

Bus travel can be something of a lottery, but simply saying it is
always a lottery and nothing more is blinkered.


My completely serious suggestion would be to buy a bike. I've got one, and
avoid all forms of public transport like the plague. As a result, i get
where i'm going faster and more reliably, and much more enjoyably, than
any travelcard monkey making the same trip. Yes, faster - door to door, i
can even beat the Victoria line to work!


Avoiding "all forms of public transport like the plague" and yet
having such an evidently great interest in it could strike one as
slightly odd!

Regarding your comments about cycling, I would certainly agree -
though for longer journeys across the capital (e.g. Croydon - central
London) the scales would begin to tip the other way. And for various
reasons it's not always convenient. But it is a seriously fast way of
getting around town, no doubt.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 11 Apr, 13:44, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Railist wrote:

Just what is it with London Buses and ME?

This is why i get so furious when people on here tell me that buses are a
perfectly good way to travel, that they can get from Pinner to London
Bridge in ten minutes with cast-iron reliability, etc. It's not true. It's
just not true. Bus travel is a lottery, and nothing more.

I suspect in part that's me your getting furious with, though those
views aren't an accurate reflection of what I think.

Well, strawmen are a lot easier to get furious at!

There are a whole host of factors with regards to how good bus travel
will be, including when the journey is being made and the potential for
bus hopping along that route which can dramatically speed things up. Of
course to take advantage of this you need some local knowledge.

I think time of day might be the main thing that divides us. I mostly use
buses because the tube's closed, which means mostly late at night, when i
think the service tends to get a bit ragged. We should go out boozing one
night, and then try some test trips on the buses. In fact, we should have
a utl meet, and settle it once and for all!

My completely serious suggestion would be to buy a bike. I've got one,
and avoid all forms of public transport like the plague. As a result, i
get where i'm going faster and more reliably, and much more enjoyably,
than any travelcard monkey making the same trip. Yes, faster - door to
door, i can even beat the Victoria line to work!

Avoiding "all forms of public transport like the plague" and yet having
such an evidently great interest in it could strike one as slightly odd!

Heh! I avoid them where they're not necessary, but have a great personal
interest in them working well when they are necessary. Which, as you say,
is for any journey over 5-10 miles.

Also, to be honest, mostly i'm interested because it's a cool engineering
problem. I like space rockets too, and am even more unlikely to use those.

Regarding your comments about cycling, I would certainly agree - though
for longer journeys across the capital (e.g. Croydon - central London)
the scales would begin to tip the other way.

Yes, certainly. Although the bike can still play a role - to get to my
friend's house in Wallington, for example, i can either take the tube to
Victoria, then a slow train to Wallington, or cycle to Victoria, take a
fast train to East Croydon, and then cycle to his. It works out about the
same. Taking the fast train to Croydon and then changing to a bus or train
for the final leg is quite a bit slower. Ditto a fortiori for visiting
friends and relations outside London - cycle to Euston, express train to
Holyhead, cycle to Rhoscolyn beats any and all other transport strategies
for that trip!

And for various reasons it's not always convenient.

Also true. This depends to some extent on the traveller's state of mind,
though. If you're going shopping, do you rule out the bike, or do you get
a really big rucksack? If it's raining, do you take the bus, or a
waterproof and a change of clothes?

The only times i don't cycle shortish trips are when i'm ill (including
really hopelessly plastered), basically. Or if it's really severely wet.
Occasionally, i take the train into town for a night out because i don't
want the hassle of cycling, but i always pay for this in spades when it
comes to the hassle of getting home again.

But it is a seriously fast way of getting around town, no doubt.

It is. Particularly for orbital trips.

Not that anyone ever makes orbital trips, of course. Phew, almost slipped
up there ...

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:18:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

We should go out boozing one
night, and then try some test trips on the buses [1]. In fact, we should have
a utl meet, and settle it once and for all!

Well volunteered Mr Anderson. On what date is this grand event going to
occur? ;-)


[1] Back in those ancient times when I was a student I and 2 others
spent a night whizzing all over London by night bus. This was long
before night buses were every 10 - 20 minutes. It was great fun but a
tad chilly waiting at Friern Barnet at 3am!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:18:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

We should go out boozing one
night, and then try some test trips on the buses [1]. In fact, we should have
a utl meet, and settle it once and for all!

Well volunteered Mr Anderson. On what date is this grand event going to
occur? ;-)

I thought we were doing this sometime in Burton-on-Trent. :-))

(In which case you would **all** be seriously shocked about how elastic
the term "public transport" can be.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk