Just look at London underground or in fact the whole of the train system there, you have interchange to go to certain places. Not all trains should go to the city and I agree, its going to probably have to get to the point in which interchanging for certain services is just going to be usual practise

You have to make connections, yes, but on the whole the Underground lines do pass through the city, though not necessarily the square mile. The mainline railways which also run suburban/interurban-type services, however, do all have city-rim termini, from which onward connections need to be made.

No Western or Northern Line stations lose a direct service in the October timetable. Period. The only change is that Northern Line services don't always become Northern Line services after passing through Central as is currently the case - ie some Emu Plains/Richmond etc services will go via the ECRL.

So we might finally get that Parramatta to Epping Rail Link, after all these years!! Only it will go via the city and probably take about an hour and a half.

You have to make connections, yes, but on the whole the Underground lines do pass through the city, though not necessarily the square mile. The mainline railways which also run suburban/interurban-type services, however, do all have city-rim termini, from which onward connections need to be made.

Ah some mainline trains go through various other stations in which you have to change, like Clapham Junction which runs southwest trains to London Waterloo, Southern/Gatwick Express Services and First Capital Connect to London Victoria which both are major terminus'.

I think that we will have to change. I mean during off peak if you want to go from Penrith to Campbelltown you have to change at Granville and vise versa. Same if you want to go to carlingford, you have to change at Clyde.

Just on that note, would the Carlingford line remain the same as it is now or actually go to having trains running thru to the city? In all honesty, I think turning the Carlingford line into a light rail service that would go to Parramatta to change with heavy rail services would be far more beneficial as trams could run more frequently. Just an idea though.

So we might finally get that Parramatta to Epping Rail Link, after all these years!! Only it will go via the city and probably take about an hour and a half.

Considering Bazza doesn't want the Parramatta to Epping section built till after the northwest rail link is complete, even then I can't see it happening. Would clash with the NWRL services.

Ah some mainline trains go through various other stations in which you have to change, like Clapham Junction which runs southwest trains to London Waterloo, Southern/Gatwick Express Services and First Capital Connect to London Victoria which both are major terminus'.

Oh, you're referring to the likes of Clapham Junction. I do apologise, I believed you were referring to how connections need to be made between mainline and Underground, etc.

I think that we will have to change. I mean during off peak if you want to go from Penrith to Campbelltown you have to change at Granville and vise versa. Same if you want to go to carlingford, you have to change at Clyde.

I believe that if we rely more on connections than point-to-point, considerably more capacity can be wrung out of the system; however, this requires a change of mindset in commuters.

Just on that note, would the Carlingford line remain the same as it is now or actually go to having trains running thru to the city? In all honesty, I think turning the Carlingford line into a light rail service that would go to Parramatta to change with heavy rail services would be far more beneficial as trams could run more frequently. Just an idea though.

I don't think it'll ever get more than that one morning service into the City.

does anyone know if outer depots will be going off sector again on weekdays ? that's what ive heard from various sources

does anyone know if outer depots will be going off sector again on weekdays ? that's what ive heard from various sources

Definite maybe,  where I used to work, the following was standard practice:

"If you haven't heard a rumour by 0900,  start one, and see how long it takes to get back to you."

The only change is that Northern Line services don't always become Northern Line services after passing through Central as is currently the case - ie some Emu Plains/Richmond etc services will go via the ECRL.

Sounds like they're adding extra complexity. But at least they're in the same sector.

Gladys has said that the timetables are being built from scratch, which means NSW TrainLink (Countrylink) will be using different paths to and from Sydney Terminal to fit around with suburban paths.

Curious to know what "paths" these extracapital services are supposed to take around the SydneyTrains services.

I fear that, also recalling that the TrainsLink services will hence "better serve the long-distance travellers"*, this will result an unfeasible trip to work and back (~36km) for this (presently) industrial worker, compared to some penguin-suited smegholes in my neighbourhood getting an easy 43km run to Sydney, because even every Tomoko, Duchess and Harriett from K-Town and The Gong, goes to Sydney. Phooey! (japanese-style-emoticon-angry-face-with-crosshair-vein)

* obvious paraphrase I read from someone else's quote of someone-else-again, from this site. However, this site's search is worse than smeggin' Tumblr!(òwó)

Does anyone have any idea what is going to happen to stopping patterns on the East Hills Line?

Are Kingsgrove, Beverly Hills, Riverwood and Padstow not going to see limited stops/express services ever again after the timetable change?

"If you haven't heard a rumour by 0900"

You aren't starting until 1300

Ah some mainline trains go through various other stations in which you have to change, like Clapham Junction which runs southwest trains to London Waterloo, Southern/Gatwick Express Services and First Capital Connect to London Victoria which both are major terminus'.

I think that we will have to change. I mean during off peak if you want to go from Penrith to Campbelltown you have to change at Granville and vise versa. Same if you want to go to carlingford, you have to change at Clyde.

Clapham Junction has (according to Wikipedia) "more than one hundred (trains) an hour outside peak periods" where Sydney Central "is served by twenty-seven to thirty-eight trains per hour in each direction, with additional trains during weekday peak hours". So by my reading, Clapham Junction will be around 50% more useful for changing trains than Sydney Central! This is not a fair comparison in relation to your earlier suggestion of interchanges at Campbelltown, Waterfall, Penrith, etc where you only have two directions for travel, one of which you have just come from.

I don't mind interchanging (I commuted on Tokyo for a while and it works well over there), but it needs to be useful (such as your suggested Granville change). All you would achieve by forcing interchanges at Waterfall would be to put more cars back onto the F6 as people get frustrated by missed connections, sub-optimal stopping patterns, and additional commuting time wasted waiting for multiple trains (my wife used to commute to Sydney and she spent around 3 and a half hours daily just in commuting).

I would hope that the new timetable has more Southern Highlands trains running though to Central. Over the last 20 years they have started terminating more and more at Cambpelltown due to congestion on the lines to the city. I am guessing (hoping) that K2RQ would alleviate some of this and allow a few more to run direct, especially during the peak.

Forced interchanging in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing; however, in the Sydney context, it has to serve some useful purpose, (e.g. allowing better frequencies, reducing congestion, train loading balancing, whatever) that enhances the system's efficiency without creating excessive inconvenience. A balance must be struck between system efficiency (which a connections-based network enhances, and which is operationally preferable) and one-seat rides (which is what an everywhere-to-everywhere network like ours provides, and commuters like it).

For example, there has been an increase in congestion over the years which has resulted in fewer paths being available to use for a 2N service from the Southern Highlands; instead of using a very valuable peak slot for a mere 2N service, or even 4N service, it makes far more sense to run an eight-car suburban service with a connection at Campbelltown. It is a much more efficient use of limited resources; yet now that we have the K2RQ coming online, it may be viable once more to use a slot for a direct Southern Highlands service.

In many cities, the need to make connections is accepted and lived with. In Sydney, however, we have for far too long been spoiled with the (admittedly City-centric) one-seat ride - hardly the most efficient way to do things.

If you're up for some reading on this particular sub-topic, Jarrett Walker has an excellent article on Connections vs. Complexity.

Forced interchanging in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing; however, in the Sydney context, it has to serve some useful purpose, (e.g. allowing better frequencies, reducing congestion, train loading balancing, whatever) that enhances the system's efficiency without creating excessive inconvenience. A balance must be struck between system efficiency (which a connections-based network enhances, and which is operationally preferable) and one-seat rides (which is what an everywhere-to-everywhere network like ours provides, and commuters like it).

...
In many cities, the need to make connections is accepted and lived with. In Sydney, however, we have for far too long been spoiled with the (admittedly City-centric) one-seat ride - hardly the most efficient way to do things.

If you're up for some reading on this particular sub-topic, Jarrett Walker has an excellent article on Connections vs. Complexity.

Screw what the commuters want, one-seat rides where possible are both the most efficient and convenient way of delivering PT from the provider's point of view.  

And for CityRail in particular - where boardings are the key capacity constraint - interchanges (and unnecessary stops to serve them) bleed speed and capacity.  But the biggest bummer is that an interchange means you now need two trains/busses/seats/whatevers to deliver 2 trips to complete a journey where as before you only needed 1.

Put simply, interchanges are to be avoided at all costs in system design!  

However, *if* you surreptitiously specify your performance KPI in terms of "trips", making everyone change at least onbce is a great way of "increasing patronage" by increasing the number of trips made.  It also halves the cost/trip to the taxpayer .

Interchanges are not a solution to congestion, they are a major cause of it.  In this case we're talking about creating a problem so we can apply a solution used elsewhere to solve that problem, even though we don't have it here (yet).

Screw what the commuters want, one-seat rides where possible are both the most efficient and convenient way of delivering PT from the provider's point of view.

I disagree. An excessive emphasis on the one-seat ride results in an unbelievably complex network - in other words, the hole we are in!

And for CityRail in particular - where boardings are the key capacity constraint - interchanges (and unnecessary stops to serve them) bleed speed and capacity.

I'm not so sure that boardings (or alightings!) per se are the factor that bleeds capacity and speed. The thing that really causes the bleeding is bidirectional passenger exchange, i.e. when half the full train wants to get off, and when half the full platform wants to get on. This is the killer at Central and Town Hall; note the inaugural deployment of platform marshals on Town Hall #3 during morning peak, selected I believe because it is the finest example of bidirectional passenger exchange. Trains arriving from the Western and Northern Lines disgorge most of their passengers, yet the platform teems with passengers boarding for onward connections to the North Shore Line.

But the biggest bummer is that an interchange means you now need two trains/busses/seats/whatevers to deliver 2 trips to complete a journey where as before you only needed 1.

I agree that passengers dislike this, but I feel compelled to point out that this allows a concentration of resources, in turn allowing higher frequency, which enhances the usefulness of the service.

Put simply, interchanges are to be avoided at all costs in system design!

Again, I disagree. One need only witness the congestion and waste of the State Transit Authority bus network; as it is designed to give every suburb its one-seat ride to the City, there is the congestion of thousands of bus movements into the City every weekday morning. There is also the much weaker service frequency, as resources must be spread thinner to ensure everyone has 'their' bus, yet due to our geography routes overlap in giant stacks, resulting in parades of half-empty 40-foot buses - waste.

For the passenger, this results in an excessively complicated system that is impossible to understand (beyond 'their' service), and one that offers limited freedom of mobility - a service is only so useful spontaneously if it operates half-hourly instead of every ten minutes! Yet by concentrating resources, which by the way means building a network based on frequent services tied together with connections (rather than a giant pile of weak routes), passengers can actually get where they need to go much faster, and from the operational point of view, much more efficiently!

However, *if* you surreptitiously specify your performance KPI in terms of "trips", making everyone change at least onbce is a great way of "increasing patronage" by increasing the number of trips made.  It also halves the cost/trip to the taxpayer .

There is that too.

Interchanges are not a solution to congestion, they are a major cause of it.

I beg to differ. If connections made in major suburban centres - e.g. Warringah Mall - allow for consolidation of a hundred half-empty single-deck buses into forty mostly-full double-deck buses, they do in fact reduce congestion!

In the context of CityRail, CBD connections are undeniably problematic. However, if the interchanges are made in suburban centres, allowing a more streamlined, efficient and effective service into the City, then surely they reduce congestion.

In the afternoon/evening peak, there is the problem of passengers waiting for 'their' service; much congestion could be relieved by having service patterns such that everyone can board the first service. Currently, at the height of afternoon/evening peak the Western Line has an express and a limited stops pattern to Penrith/Emu Plains, a limited stops pattern to Richmond and a local pattern to Blacktown.

These are all different - for example, one of the Penrith/Emu Plains patterns calls at Westmead and Seven Hills, but not Werrington and Kingswood; passengers for Wentworthville or Schofields have only one option. The result is a lot of passengers standing around, clogging up very limited platform space - congestion!

Yet if everyone was able to board standardised expresses and change at Parramatta and/or Seven Hills, everyone would be able to get on the first Western Line service and change later, rather than clog up valuable CBD platform space.

(Yes, there is the problem of Lidcombe, Auburn and Clyde; I have made the assumption that they will be serviced by the South Line. Seven Hills is attractive because it offers cross-platform interchange that neither Parramatta nor Blacktown offer.)

In this case we're talking about creating a problem so we can apply a solution used elsewhere to solve that problem, even though we don't have it here (yet).

I dispute this conclusion. If we are the ignore the lazy preference of the commuter to make no connections and thus remain in the same one seat for the entire duration of his commute (hence allowing him maximum time to sip his soy latte with one Equal and use Facebook for iPhone while listening to Foster the People), I stand by my assertions and belief that a frequent network based on non-overlapping services that is tied together with seamless connections delivers the most effective transport network possible; it offers frequent, useful services that enhance the mobility of the passenger, getting him (and his soy latte) where he needs to be more effectively, and if applied correctly, possibly even faster.

On the personal level, I would go as far as to assert that a system based on one-seat rides (i.e. complexity to avoid connections) is an ancient relic pandering to the passenger's wants while failing to cater to his needs.

I agree more with Watson374 than djf01.  Connections are a necessary evil.  One of the hassles at Town Hall is a large number of people letting a given train go by because it doesn't serve their stop, adding to platform congestion.

However, connections do deter passengers and don't help system efficiency outside of the CBD.

I agree more with Watson374 than djf01.  Connections are a necessary evil.  One of the hassles at Town Hall is a large number of people letting a given train go by because it doesn't serve their stop, adding to platform congestion.

However, connections do deter passengers and don't help system efficiency outside of the CBD.

I agree; what works best for the system in the City need not necessarily work best for the system outside the CBD. I do, however, believe that the best balance to be struck lies in creating focal interchange points in suburban centres, which should lessen the burden of having to connect, yet also move congestion created by interchanging to suburban centres rather than the CBD.

Connections deter passengers in Sydney only because they are spoiled by the long-standing provision of one-seat rides. This need not be so. On the London Underground, for example, I understand that passengers carry a different mentality: take the first train, and then change.

I disagree. An excessive emphasis on the one-seat ride results in an unbelievably complex network - in other words, the hole we are in!

The network's complexity has nothing to do with lack of interchanges.  It's entirely down to the size, topology and critically the ratio of paths through the hub to total number of stations.

I'm not so sure that boardings (or alightings!) per se are the factor that bleeds capacity and speed. The thing that really causes the bleeding is bidirectional passenger exchange, i.e. when half the full train wants to get off, and when half the full platform wants to get on. This is the killer at Central and Town Hall; note the inaugural deployment of platform marshals on Town Hall #3 during morning peak, selected I believe because it is the finest example of bidirectional passenger exchange. Trains arriving from the Western and Northern Lines disgorge most of their passengers, yet the platform teems with passengers boarding for onward connections to the North Shore Line.

I don't disagree that simultaneous boardings/alightments are both a particular feature and problem with CityRail.  However, you have to appreciate that any increases in interchanges:
a) doesn't change this.  At best it reduces PAX waiting on platforms by reducing stopping pattern numbers, but not by that much - you're hardly going to get down to a single stopping pattern on Sector 3.
b) re-creates this problem at additional places on the network.  (What's likely to happen at Chatswood post the NWRL is probably the best example - it'll be worse the TH).

I agree that passengers dislike this, but I feel compelled to point out that this allows a concentration of resources, in turn allowing higher frequency, which enhances the usefulness of the service.

The same load balancing benefits can be achieved with branching.  Compare running a Cumberland Line Richmond-Cambo in leu of Richmond-City.  Currently (bar the few peak services), the least used journey that does not pass through the main hub: Main South to Main West.  Yet a much more popular journey: Richmond - main hub - has to interchange.  And you still need the same capacity (or more actually, because the main south needs more capacity unused west of Granville).  You just have more interchanges and associated variance in dwell times & OTR.

Again, I disagree. One need only witness the congestion and waste of the State Transit Authority bus network; as it is designed to give every suburb its one-seat ride to the City, there is the congestion of thousands of bus movements into the City every weekday morning. There is also the much weaker service frequency, as resources must be spread thinner to ensure everyone has 'their' bus, yet due to our geography routes overlap in giant stacks, resulting in parades of half-empty 40-foot buses - waste.

I think you are confusing concepts a bit here.  Effective frequency is a trade off between unit size, route demand and your acceptable loading factors.  Bigger units means lower frequency for the same loadings.  (The SD train argument).  With an interchange system the only way you can really increase efficiencies is with larger but less frequent units on the core route.  And with busses the efficiency gains of doing this are marginal at best (because there is no such thing as a  400 seat bus).  You can also achieve efficiencies with a small with a smaller unit more frequent unit on a feeder route.  But in a bus context, you don't save much going to a smaller bus.

But I'll throw you another one:  The term I shall summarily invent here is "passenger frequency inconvenience cost".  The gross inconvenience factor of the wait based on service frequency.  For turn up and go, you're expected wait time it 1/(2f)  (f=frequency = 1/t t=time between services).  If you have to catch 2 services, a & b, it becomes 1/(2fa) + 1/(2fb) [plus interchange time too], which is *always* larger than 1/(2 Max(fa, fb)) [even ignoring interchange times].  

If one of those routes has a non-turn up an go frequency ( lt 10min) - as many of our routes (bus and train) do - you've added the additional complication for the passenger that they cannot turn up at the hub and get on the "right" service, they have to guess when to get on their high frequency service to meet their connection.  Where with a timetabled system they could reduce their expected wait times to less than 1/(2f), if there is a high frequency mode they need to allow for the variance in journey time of their high frequency leg to do this.  It means their expected wait at the interchange for their least frequent mode is increased, along with the interchange cost.  From the PAX perspective, even if the interchange is seamless, there overall journey time is compromised by: 1/(2 x Min(fa, fb)) - 1/(2 x Max(fa, fb)).

By virtue of our geography, most of our collector routes have very small frequencies, and most of high frequency routes still have a high enough run time variance to ensure PAX can no longer use timetables to minimise their wait.   And by virtue of poor interchange design (especially involving mode changes) in Australia and NSW in particular, our interchange costs are usually high.    On a 15min frequency feeder service, you have all but guaranteed an additional 7.5min (+2.5min interchange cost) increase in journey time.  And that extra time is all spent waiting around on a platform somewhere, perhaps "congested", perhaps not.  Added to that, 2 trains halves you're chances of OTR (if there is a timetable of course).  This as much as anything explains why interchanges are so deeply unpopular in Australia.

The only real solution to this is guarantee connections off specific high frequency services, which completely defeats the purpose.

In the case of the STA, if it really is as you describe (I have no data one way or another), one of the great advantages of bus systems is the unit sizes are so low it is very easy to adjust routes and collection areas to match desired loading factors with desired frequencies.  The fact that this may not happen in Sydney is not surprising, but it's nothing to do with passengers wanting direct connections.  Direct services exist primarily because it's in the provider's interest to have a common hub they can work out of.

The issue as I see it is you might be increasing the frequency of services on the core trunk routes, but you are not delivering improved frequency benefits to the users, the reverse in fact.

In the context of CityRail, CBD connections are undeniably problematic. However, if the interchanges are made in suburban centres, allowing a more streamlined, efficient and effective service into the City, then surely they reduce congestion.

I think in the particular case of CityRail it's not so much the number of connections but the direction, as per your point.  Adding to the boardings at a major destination AM station station like Parramatta or Chatswood is potentially hugely problematic.  As is adding boardings at Central.

In the afternoon/evening peak, there is the problem of passengers waiting for 'their' service; much congestion could be relieved by having service patterns such that everyone can board the first service. Currently, at the height of afternoon/evening peak the Western Line has an express and a limited stops pattern to Penrith/Emu Plains, a limited stops pattern to Richmond and a local pattern to Blacktown.

And a main north, and only certain trains stop at Clyde for Carlingford etc .  Plus IIRC some of these trains uses the suburbans west of Strathfield too, meaning they are attracting customers (whoever said I wasn't customer focused?)  

But again I think you are mixing concepts here.  Fewer simplified stopping patterns vs overall journey time.  

And PAX waiting on platforms (so long as they are out of the way) aren't really the biggest problem, it's those waiting to broad specific trains contesting with those wanting to get off.

And even so, are interchanges really an effective solution to the overall perception/reality of "congestion"?

Yet if everyone was able to board standardised expresses and change at Parramatta and/or Seven Hills, everyone would be able to get on the first Western Line service and change later, rather than clog up valuable CBD platform space.

(Yes, there is the problem of Lidcombe, Auburn and Clyde; I have made the assumption that they will be serviced by the South Line. Seven Hills is attractive because it offers cross-platform interchange that neither Parramatta nor Blacktown offer.)

As it happens I agree with you on this point, but not to the extent there should be interchanges.  IMHO western line trains should have standardised stopping patterns at least as far west as Parramatta, perhaps Westmead, with the major stations serviced by most trains so the majority of PAX can can get either the first of second train that arrives.  I don't see where I'm introducing interchanges here (other than perhaps some non hub inclusive journeys).

To sum up, I think this interchange idea is an ineffective solution to an incorrectly diagnosed problem.  

• Observed problem: crowding
• "Obvious" solution for the government: more trains
• Issue: not enough paths for these new trains
• Solution: route them where there are paths.
• Issue: How do the PAX get to where they actually want to go though?
• Solution: "F'n whinging PAX can bloody well interchange like they do everywhere else in the world".

It's a preference of PT users around the world to have a seamless service.  I think djf01 is absolutely correct in his comments about the Richmond line not going to the CBD being somewhat retarded.  The only reason that is being considered is the lack of infrastructure on the Richmond line which doesn't allow a reliable 15 minute service.  They should make that infrastructure available.

It's a preference of PT users around the world to have a seamless service.  I think djf01 is absolutely correct in his comments about the Richmond line not going to the CBD being somewhat retarded.  The only reason that is being considered is the lack of infrastructure on the Richmond line which doesn't allow a reliable 15 minute service.  They should make that infrastructure available.

A single line does cause problem when trying to increase frequency to Richmond Line, but a much bigger problem is - even when the duplication is done - there is no more space for those extra 15-min frequency services pull into the Main West unless another heavier project - the Western Express tracks and even a second harbour crossing - is done.

In my mind, making every services as efficient as they are and reduce empty running trains mileage is a positive way to increase overall service reliability and efficiency - and operation cost.

Yes, we do need more paths and routes to accommodate more trains running to and from the city, but this could take decades to plan and build. What TfNSW could do now is utilising the existing infrastructures to a higher level so to gain more time to build those vital links before the increasing heavy flow of passengers crash the network. I believe that solving the congestion of complex train network will and do help to make passengers' journey quicker and easier.

To think a bit further, Sydney is experiencing a transformation to a multi-centers city, which means the orientation of service deployment is no longer only Central and the CBD, but much more. Switching the way from gathering trains to Central, CBD and Nth Sydney to a connected network where people can get to and from work easier is an agenda of city future transport. It could be done now or later, but it should eventually come.

A single line does cause problem when trying to increase frequency to Richmond Line, but a much bigger problem is - even when the duplication is done - there is no more space for those extra 15-min frequency services pull into the Main West unless another heavier project - the Western Express tracks and even a second harbour crossing - is done.

In my mind, making every services as efficient as they are and reduce empty running trains mileage is a positive way to increase overall service reliability and efficiency - and operation cost.

Yes, we do need more paths and routes to accommodate more trains running to and from the city, but this could take decades to plan and build. What TfNSW could do now is utilising the existing infrastructures to a higher level so to gain more time to build those vital links before the increasing heavy flow of passengers crash the network. I believe that solving the congestion of complex train network will and do help to make passengers' journey quicker and easier.

To think a bit further, Sydney is experiencing a transformation to a multi-centers city, which means the orientation of service deployment is no longer only Central and the CBD, but much more. Switching the way from gathering trains to Central, CBD and Nth Sydney to a connected network where people can get to and from work easier is an agenda of city future transport. It could be done now or later, but it should eventually come.

I think you are forgetting the trains that terminate/start at Blacktown and Schofields.  There is more then enough trains there to give the Richmond line 15 minute services if you extend these (if there were enough tracks that is)

I heard that A sets will be trialled on the Cumberland Line (Campbelltown-Schofields via Y-link) in a few weeks time. Maybe this is a sign that they may be running Cumberland services using A sets in October rather than the rumoured return of 4 car sets on full time Cumberland services?

I heard that A sets will be trialled on the Cumberland Line (Campbelltown-Schofields via Y-link) in a few weeks time. Maybe this is a sign that they may be running Cumberland services using A sets in October rather than the rumoured return of 4 car sets on full time Cumberland services?

The latter would be more logical.

I think you are forgetting the trains that terminate/start at Blacktown and Schofields.  There is more then enough trains there to give the Richmond line 15 minute services if you extend these (if there were enough tracks that is)

Quite.

Once again, a thread about the new timetable (I think this is the third) has gone from idle speculation and discussion to "this is what should happen" and all that nonsense. I wandered in here interested in reading about some of the supposed changes (and to hopefully figure out fact from fiction), but sorry to see this has once again fallen long by the wayside.

Here here raichaise. Thos thread was made just for factual elements to the new timetable. Please use the armchair threads otherwise.