The mask keeps slipping squire.The Tick wrote:Services are in healthy place as it is and spending £6 million on sorting out the overground map won't disrupt that. Stations for the most part are clean with regular service. Buses are pretty OK too.
People can keep throwing red herring after red herring at this argument but the underlying cause of the meltdown is the name changes.
No one cares about the names, although interestingly you do, you really care.The Tick wrote:The only mask around here is the one thinly veneering the real reasons for the fauxtrage over a transport network rebrand.
You've goaded, You've obviously deliberately tried to wind posters up on numerous occasions on this thread and you've ignored warnings to pull your neck in.
Are you sure TFL aren't financially busted? Even if they aren't it could neve been spent better elsewhere, unless you're a Sadiq fanboy and everything he touches is Gold.The Tick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe weakness of the cover justifications such as cost. At the beginning the accusations were that TFL was in financial dire straits. Once that myth was dispelled, the argument changed to "it's a lot of money". When that was dispelled the argument was changed to "it could've been spent better elsewhere".
In other words, cost wasn't the underlying issue behind the objections to TFLs rebranding. If it was, the argument would be more water tight than that.
Tick, how many times do I have to tell you that the project is a waste of money? You know full well my argument is solid. The renaming isn't justifiable, as inadvertently proven by Sub's thoughts quoted above. He's right. The majority of people, including Overground staff, will continue to refer to the Overground as a collective noun and its routes rather than the names.The Tick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe weakness of the cover justifications such as cost. At the beginning the accusations were that TFL was in financial dire straits. Once that myth was dispelled, the argument changed to "it's a lot of money". When that was dispelled the argument was changed to "it could've been spent better elsewhere".
In other words, cost wasn't the underlying issue behind the objections to TFLs rebranding. If it was, the argument would be more water tight than that.
TFL was virtually bankrupt in 2020, during Covid it suspended the ticket machines and so the buses became free. I said it at the time that it was just plain stupid, the driver has a perspex screen with small holes in it so he can speak to passengers, all it needed was for the holes to be covered up with transparent film and no need to suspend the payment machines. If a perspex screen was good enough for supermarket workers why not bus driver.chelseachelsea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:29 pmAre you sure TFL aren't financially busted? Even if they aren't it could neve been spent better elsewhere, unless you're a Sadiq fanboy and everything he touches is Gold.The Tick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe weakness of the cover justifications such as cost. At the beginning the accusations were that TFL was in financial dire straits. Once that myth was dispelled, the argument changed to "it's a lot of money". When that was dispelled the argument was changed to "it could've been spent better elsewhere".
In other words, cost wasn't the underlying issue behind the objections to TFLs rebranding. If it was, the argument would be more water tight than that.
That's what I read, Tick must read publications, that don't agree with this...and then argue the toss about triggering gammons etc...sad really.birdie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:54 pmTFL was virtually bankrupt in 2020, during Covid it suspended the ticket machines and so the buses became free. I said it at the time that it was just plain stupid, the driver has a perspex screen with small holes in it so he can speak to passengers, all it needed was for the holes to be covered up with transparent film and no need to suspend the payment machines. If a perspex screen was good enough for supermarket workers why not bus driver.chelseachelsea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:29 pmAre you sure TFL aren't financially busted? Even if they aren't it could neve been spent better elsewhere, unless you're a Sadiq fanboy and everything he touches is Gold.The Tick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe weakness of the cover justifications such as cost. At the beginning the accusations were that TFL was in financial dire straits. Once that myth was dispelled, the argument changed to "it's a lot of money". When that was dispelled the argument was changed to "it could've been spent better elsewhere".
In other words, cost wasn't the underlying issue behind the objections to TFLs rebranding. If it was, the argument would be more water tight than that.
Another thing TFL could have done was to rehouse the machines to the middle door, or would that be technically impossible.
The Government gave TFL millions (cant recall how much) to keep it afloat and then TFL asked for more but were told that they had to take measure to collect fares so all of a sudden the ticket machines were working again.
TFL also has a £15b black hole it the pension fund, Khan hopes to raise £123m a year by charging motorists to use the Blackwall Tunnel, which so far is free to use.
I don't, for one minute, believe that Tick himself believes everything he posts, he puts up posts disagreeing with virtually everyone here, just to see how far he can go before someone loses their temper and posts something resulting in a ban. That's his main aim, to get someone a ban. Ichelseachelsea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:38 pmThat's what I read, Tick must read publications, that don't agree with this...and then argue the toss about triggering gammons etc...sad really.birdie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:54 pmTFL was virtually bankrupt in 2020, during Covid it suspended the ticket machines and so the buses became free. I said it at the time that it was just plain stupid, the driver has a perspex screen with small holes in it so he can speak to passengers, all it needed was for the holes to be covered up with transparent film and no need to suspend the payment machines. If a perspex screen was good enough for supermarket workers why not bus driver.chelseachelsea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:29 pmAre you sure TFL aren't financially busted? Even if they aren't it could neve been spent better elsewhere, unless you're a Sadiq fanboy and everything he touches is Gold.The Tick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe weakness of the cover justifications such as cost. At the beginning the accusations were that TFL was in financial dire straits. Once that myth was dispelled, the argument changed to "it's a lot of money". When that was dispelled the argument was changed to "it could've been spent better elsewhere".
In other words, cost wasn't the underlying issue behind the objections to TFLs rebranding. If it was, the argument would be more water tight than that.
Another thing TFL could have done was to rehouse the machines to the middle door, or would that be technically impossible.
The Government gave TFL millions (cant recall how much) to keep it afloat and then TFL asked for more but were told that they had to take measure to collect fares so all of a sudden the ticket machines were working again.
TFL also has a £15b black hole it the pension fund, Khan hopes to raise £123m a year by charging motorists to use the Blackwall Tunnel, which so far is free to use.
This is quite route one by your usual standards. No mentions of gammon tears, the "alt right" (whatever that is), Brexit benefits or other sixth form politics terms? Your standards are slipping old boy
