Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 20:46:27 GMT
With the ongoing mayhem tonight I ended up doing Temple to Upminster all the way on the district.
On the 1747 service to Upminster, I should have arrived at 1841. I actually got there at 1910, due to a maximum speed being achieved of about 10mph all the way from Tower Hill to Barking.
Throughout this journey the line showed as 'good service'. Since this was all due to red signals, presumably numerous other trains were bunching up as well. Does 29 minutes delay for several trains not count as at least 'minor delays'? What's the threshold for that sort of thing on the district currently?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 23, 2013 21:48:21 GMT
I think we've established numerous times that the service updates are a work of fiction.
Lare running of the order of 30 mins should, in my book, constitute "severe delays".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 23:13:21 GMT
Yeah I think that's an established 'opinion' of many, but until today I'd never seen a disparity that great  |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Dec 24, 2013 7:59:35 GMT
It would be possible to 'crowd source' a site giving a more accurate indication of the state of the lines. It would be a laugh if anyone could be bothered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 20:54:24 GMT
It would be possible to 'crowd source' a site giving a more accurate indication of the state of the lines. It would be a laugh if anyone could be bothered. Twitter. Just search for the line you want and see if people are moaning about waiting ages/slow trains. Also sometimes BBC London's Travel Alert twitter feed will report delays that have been crowd sourced... In fact I've sent them reports numerous times in the past that they have retweeted. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 30, 2013 21:15:01 GMT
I also think that when a service frequency is significantly reduced by engineering works, they shouldn't be allowed to call it a good service. The District line was running every 10 mins between Upminster and South Kensington, which is about the maximum possible considering the reversing facilities available at South Ken coupled with the fact that there were through Circle line trains, which meant the margins were very tight there.
However, a 10 min District service cannot be called good when you consider that the normal Saturday frequency is significantly higher. it should say "Part suspended between . . . with a reduced service on the rest of the line."
Unfortunately, the word "good" is very subjective, and therefore pretty meaningless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 21:43:50 GMT
Well, they could replace adjectives with an estimate of the number of trains per hour running on any given line in any given direction...
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 30, 2013 22:06:20 GMT
The problem with trains per hour is that most people don't know what the timetabled number of trains per hour is on any given line. You also have the problem that if the line has branches, there will be a different tph figure for different parts of the line.
I would advocate replacing the term "good service" with "normal service." Minor delays would become Extended Intervals, with Severe
Delays remaining as it is. As I mentioned In a previous post! the term Reduced service should be used when trains are less frequent due to engineering works.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 31, 2013 13:49:26 GMT
And to further prove the point about the usefulness of these statuses, the Hammersmith and City line is being described as having a good service when it isn't even operating!
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Dec 31, 2013 14:30:57 GMT
And to further prove the point about the usefulness of these statuses, the Hammersmith and City line is being described as having a good service when it isn't even operating! There's something to be said for that, "if it ain't running, there ain't no delays!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 7:35:24 GMT
Throughout this journey the line showed as 'good service'. Since this was all due to red signals, presumably numerous other trains were bunching up as well. Does 29 minutes delay for several trains not count as at least 'minor delays'? What's the threshold for that sort of thing on the district currently? Yesterday at around 1130 the circle line was having serious problems but at South Kensington they were proudly telling us that a good service was running on all routes. Two clockwise circles turned up one behind the other, then there was another for over 30 minutes. The pair came back running anti clockwise, still one directly behind the other. I would expect that 30 minute gaps on a timetabled 10 minute frequency would warrent at least "minor delays" to be announced/displayed. |
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Jan 3, 2014 19:35:12 GMT
The problem with trains per hour is that most people don't know what the timetabled number of trains per hour is on any given line. You also have the problem that if the line has branches, there will be a different tph figure for different parts of the line. I would advocate replacing the term "good service" with "normal service." Minor delays would become Extended Intervals, with Severe Delays remaining as it is. As I mentioned In a previous post! the term Reduced service should be used when trains are less frequent due to engineering works. Personally, I'd like to see a separation between delays due to reduced frequency and delays due to extended travel time. I find that I'm a lot more relaxed about waiting on a platform for an extra period of time than I am sitting on a stopped train. |
|
