Don't worry about me. Worry about those who will be ranting on Twitter once they find out!
(Who cares that it's much the same on other trains, like Pendolinos for example).
Pendos only have them at table seats but because its Virgin then it's ok remember. Much the same as it will probably be perfectly ok for MTR Crossrail to have the same amount of delays and cancellations as they will be "clearing up the mess left by Abellio".
From a passengers point of view, where lines cross in real life is irrelevant. There are similar examples on the existing tube map, eg Bow Church should be east of Bow Road, the DC line into Euston should be north of St Johns Wood.
Yes but the entire stretch of line is in the wrong place, the ELL is west of the WA line by about a mile but is shown completely opposite on the LO map.
Where do you get the entire map from? I haven't seen this map in circulation; I suppose it could just be because I'm looking in the wrong place.
Was told that the Pendolino problem exists because of the carriage profile & hence they are on sides of tables. Perhaps the First plan to re-seat the fleet was to allow seat based sockets like on their HSTs.
Unlikely anyone will be there to be inconvenienced, but it does seem somewhat silly!
From the Timetable change on 17th may the 2345 London Liverpool Street to Bishops Stortford via Edmonton Green appears to have been canned.
The alternative for some is to use the nearest Lea Valley station instead and catch the 23.42 Liverpool St to Hertford East, which does connect at Cheshunt or Broxbourne into the last train to Stortford.
The 23.45 Liverpool St to Stortford only used to continue in passenger service beyond Cheshunt as the units were required to stable at Stortford, and to avoid the driver having to wake up anyone who had nodded off, no staff at Cheshunt at that time of night. Now there is no requirement for the units to go there, that dubious duty falls to the new station staff. Strikes me as a small price to pay compared to the big improvements to the Sunday timetable for example.
The 2345 appears to continue to operate but TfL has failed to get its act together and has published a timetable of ITS OWN TRAINS ONLY! This is very unhelpful, but consistent with its approach to publicity in respect of Southern services between New Cross Gate and West Croydon etc. A little note "LE" appears against Liverpool Street, Hackney Downs, Seven Sisters, Edmonton Green and Cheshunt stations pointing you towards Abellio timetables for more information. Of course Abellio shows only its own services and the Network Rail website, which may ultimately show the combined service, is, less than two weeks before the changeover, devoid of any public timetables at all. So much for serving the customer!
Quite why TfL takes this attitude defeats my understanding. It does, for instance, mean that half the peak service between Edmonton Green and Cheshunt doesn't appear in the timetable it publishes for a line it has made a big fuss about taking over.
Only silly if you believe that "travel has an intrinsic positive utility and is valued for its own sake, not just as a means of reaching a destination." If as you say it is unlikely that anyone will be there to be inconvenienced, how can it be silly?
But TfL taking over is going to be awesome we were all told and improve everything we were told.
Whatever you say mate. :roll: Won't waste my keystrokes.
The 2345 appears to continue to operate but TfL has failed to get its act together and has published a timetable of ITS OWN TRAINS ONLY! This is very unhelpful, but consistent with its approach to publicity in respect of Southern services between New Cross Gate and West Croydon etc. A little note "LE" appears against Liverpool Street, Hackney Downs, Seven Sisters, Edmonton Green and Cheshunt stations pointing you towards Abellio timetables for more information. Of course Abellio shows only its own services and the Network Rail website, which may ultimately show the combined service, is, less than two weeks before the changeover, devoid of any public timetables at all. So much for serving the customer!
Quite why TfL takes this attitude defeats my understanding. It does, for instance, mean that half the peak service between Edmonton Green and Cheshunt doesn't appear in the timetable it publishes for a line it has made a big fuss about taking over.
Agreed. It's also made it more confusing because they've put the double arrow at stations which are only served at peaks by AGA. They should really make it clear, as AGA running fast peak services will help LO to have less packed trains.
...There are also a lot of rumors that LOROL won't let GA send trains round there during disruption? Can they do that?
I was always under the impression that it was simply when they were built sockets weren't seen as such a big thing (not as many mobile phones that needed constant charging) so putting them at every table was seen as being sufficient.
Using the NRTT code 'LE' appears petty to me, and possibly intentionally confusing to the average member of the public, who'd perhaps expect to see GA?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not at all, it will be down to NR's regulating decisions at the time surely? Are there any signs of preferential treatment on other common lines of route on NR infrastructure?
What does LE stand for?
So what if any GA services will run scheduled via Southbury after the split? There are also a lot of rumors that LOROL won't let GA send trains round there during disruption? Can they do that?
What does LE stand for?
So what if any GA services will run scheduled via Southbury after the split? There are also a lot of rumors that LOROL won't let GA send trains round there during disruption? Can they do that?
I've been wondering this since 'one' Railway.
It is London Eastern. I think its the official name of the company holding the franchise, or leasing it out, or something!