"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:04:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.

Abolishing this suddenly would probably cause economic meltdown in
London and the South East (and by extension the rest of the UK),
though.

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

This would be a good approach, too. Speaking for myself, I believe I cd
work two days a week from home. I sometimes work one but I feel guilty
about asking! Ridiculous, I know.

María

(Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to allow
(or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office workers,
call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

The broadband infrastructure - as it is currently - just wouldn't cope.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

With the UK xDSL market the way it is ?

I am someone who has the freedom to 'work where I want' when I don't *need*
to be in the office so I will either stay at home, or if I've meetings in
town will use another office somewhere.

If we assume everyone VPN's into a corporate network and that a large number
of the masses are on a 'normal' ADSL package then the max they will ever see
is 56Kbit/sec - not much use for a great deal - 1 VoIP call and a that's
about it.

I'd love for everyone to stay at home my trip to work would be so much
better for it! If everyone can avoid LST on a Monday between 09:00-10:00
that's great for me and a Friday between 16:00-17:00. Any day it's raining
too.


There is a harsh way to address the problem to a certain extent;

Extend J4 (I think) to cover in-boundary tickets in the evening rush (as
NEAR tried to make you believe anyway last year)
Enforce the luggage (Bigger than 1x1m) rule
Enforce the bike rule at at intermediate stations
Bring back the 'on time train get the road' rule (In ARS areas)
Ban children from taking up seats
Ban non folding push chairs
Ban any 'group' travel (like the 20 primary school kids we often pick up
with teachers)
Earlier first trains with clock face time tabling (I know its not that
simple)
Longer units/sets (Again not easy)
Scrap 1st Class on all local peek services

Line and journey (to me anyway) specific bits;

ECML/Hertford Loop to KGX/ZMG
Let gold card holders use NXEC services south of PBO (Unless its already
allowed - but I doubt it)
All Services to run to ZMG (as now in the peeks) but all day
Re time table the KGX terminators for matching ZMG connections (both-ways)

Southbury Loop/ENF/CHI
Reverse the London Fields/Cambridge Heath stopping pattern (Where not all
trains call at either, or 1 station)
Stop ARS holding off for a late running airport
Stop ARS holding off for a late CHI
Re tighten the time table on the ENF leg to stop long dwell times at SVS and
HAC
Move the airports off Bethnal Green West Jn. onto the Mains rather then the
Suburban's
Semi fast workings ENF-BHK-EDR-SVS-HAC-LST


While pricing us off the network won't work (as people will always need to
get into/from the city in the peeks) I don't know what can be done.
Everything come back to money (firstly) and then paths. We already know
there is likely to be a bigish increase in fares for 2009 anyway so what are
people supposed to do. As things are at the moment I know people who pay
less to drive into town for work rather then a train. (Including CC Charge,
Parking, and fuel) It also takes them about the same time but with the
advantage when the trains break they can still get home!

Just my 2p worth as usual...

On 20 Jul 2008 15:59:39 GMT, Adrian wrote:

The broadband infrastructure - as it is currently - just wouldn't cope.

So invest in it in preference to investing in commuter transport
infrastructure.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:13:10 +0100, "Q" ..@.. wrote:

While pricing us off the network won't work (as people will always need to
get into/from the city in the peeks)

*Some* people will. Probably not even half of those who currently do,
however.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

(Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The broadband infrastructure - as it is currently - just wouldn't cope.

So invest in it in preference to investing in commuter transport
infrastructure.

Clueless. Utterly clueless...

In message , at 15:40:32 on Sun,
20 Jul 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:04:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.

Abolishing this suddenly would probably cause economic meltdown in
London and the South East (and by extension the rest of the UK),
though.

Maybe so. If the chancellor's statement this weekend can be taken at
face value [cough splutter] then in the absence of future investment in
railways, we must either stem the demand by pricing, or hope that mass
unemployment caused by the underlying economic ills causes less
commuting.

Not that we necessarily want to wish unemployment on those who are
*gainfully* employed.

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

What you can't replicate with today's technology is the human
interaction that makes most white-collar workplaces function
effectively.
--
Roland Perry

On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

B2003

It still doesn't make sense to build Tube lines in South London though,
because that would involve expensive wheelchair-accessible stations which
would leave the existing surface stations underused or closed. I think it

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would wheelchair access in new tube
stations force the closure of overground stations? And a couple of new
tube lines is hardly going to have all the commuters from the whole of
south london abandoning southern region in droves and more than the
northern line in clapham means no one uses clapham junction. It would
just take the pressure off the lines a bit.

would be cheaper to build underground express lines from the edge of
London - say from east of Esher to south of Tottenham Hale via new deep
platforms at Kingston, Earls Court/West Brompton, Bond Street, and
Euston/Kings Cross ( and possibly four-track the line from Tottenham Hale to
Cheshunt) for through dual-voltage services from Portsmouth etc to Stansted
etc. - and then hand the existing surface lines to LOROL and flood them with
6-30 tph metro services.

Isn't that what thameslink is supposed to be in theory , albeit to
luton and gatwick airports not stansted?

B2003

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:04:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.

Perhaps a half-way house would be to remove the discount for rail
commuters continuing their journeys from London termini by zone 1
tube. The whole of zone 1 is within easy cycling distance of all
termini, and zone 1 tube is the only area that needs new lines to
increase capacity. You would of course need lots of secure cycle
parking at the termini.

For mainline rail, an adjustment to the financial rules is needed so
that they can run at line and platform capacity throughout the rush
hour. This needs more rolling stock, spending more of its time idle -
but that means it should last longer, reducing the extra cost.

Abolishing this suddenly would probably cause economic meltdown in
London and the South East (and by extension the rest of the UK),
though.

Suddenly, yes. In the state sector at least, a job swap programme
could help people reduce their commutes by working closer to home.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.