Illogical destination allocation.

Had exactly the same a Hammersmith when wanting to go to Kew. Three Ealing Bdy trains in succession. Also used to get this a lot at Earl's Court district line where several trains in a row would go to the same destination leaving long gaps in the service to the other destinations

I'm sure you're right, but this leads to other questions:
1) Why was TfL claiming to be running a good service when there had evidently been disruption?
2) Why had no attempt been made to rectify the situation by switching destinations of 1 Watford and 1 Uxbridge train? I can't see how Watford really needed 2 semi-fasts and 1 all-stations in the space of 5 minutes!

Cheers,

TSM

The service status messages are pretty meaningless I'm afraid. A good service is frequently advertised, when the actual service clearly isn't. As for Watford trains being diverted to Uxbridge, that would be possible However, it is a strategy that seems to be used far less than was once the case.

This seems to be a classic example of the sort of late running the Met is frequently subject to in the peak hours even when there is no specific disruption. The problem is that there is a tendency for Met trains starting from Aldgate to be about 5 minutes late by the time they reach Baker Street because of congestion over the northern half of the circle line. Conversely those trains starting their northbound trips at Baker Street are on time and so trains often depart northbound out of sequence. The timetable is structured to give an even distribution of northbound destinations (mostly, more in a moment) consequently when trains depart out of sequence like destinations tend to group themselves together. However diverting trains to restore the even distribution is regarded as overkill when some trains are only a few minutes late and others are on time. It is all very well if you are boarding your train north of the point at which the decision is taken to divert the train, but if you boarded before hand, say at Kings Cross a train you thought was going to the branch you wanted, you'd be pretty annoyed if it was subsequently diverted to another branch just because a slight gap had opened up in that service.

Now to your specific example, you've managed to arrive at Wembley at a time where the scheduled order of northbound destinations is not quite as even as at other times. The scheduled departure times from Wembley at about that time are:

18:05 to Uxbridge All Stations (ex Aldgate)
18:07½ to Watford Semi Fast (ex Aldgate)
18:10½ to Watford All Stations (ex Baker Street)
18:13 to Chesham Fast (ex Aldgate)
18:15½ to Uxbridge All Stations (ex Aldgate)
18:18½ to Watford Semi Fast (ex Baker Street)
18:21½ to Uxbridge All Stations (ex Aldgate)
18:24½ to Watford Semi Fast (ex Aldgate)
18:27 to Uxbridge All Stations (ex Baker Street)

You'll notice that at just the time you arrived at Wembley there is a scheduled ten minute gap between Uxbridge trains and that the next Uxbridge starts from Aldgate. This gap is probably one that was created by the relatively recent reduction in the Uxbridge Branch peak hour service from 12 trains per hour to 10 trains per hour.
I assume that the semi fast Watford train you just missed was the 18:07½. This was correctly followed by the 18:10½. You don't mention the Chesham so I'm going to ignore it and look to the next two trains. If, as I suggested the 18:15½ Uxbridge was about four or five minutes late arriving at Baker Street then it is almost certain that the 18:18½ Watford would have departed Baker Street in front of it, giving you your third Watford. Then finally you have your Uxbridge train but this is only one train out of timetable sequence. This will have been followed by the 18:21½ Uxbridge (probably also 4-5 late) and then the situation occurs again but this time it the 18:27 to Uxbridge which is on time with a slightly late 18:24½ Watford behind it. Thus you now have three Uxbridge trains together.

I was waiting at Baker Street for the 1759 (1739 ex Aldgate) fast Chesham. It was a few minutes late. Accordingly, trains left Baker Street in the order 1751 UX0, 1754 WF1, 1757 WFO, 1805 WF1, 1759 CM7 followed I would guess by the 1802 UXO, 1813 UXO and 1808 UXO. 'Harsig' was spot on with his observation.

I wish they wouldn't repeat that announcement at times like that. Telling me I have a good service when there has clearly been some disruption is just what I need to get me even more worked up. I know that this kind of delay may well not qualify as a "minor delay" but they could at least desist those "Good Service" announcement on the platforms if there is clearly some disruption. People aren't stupid. If there's a gap in service of 10-15 minutes I'm not going to appreciate an announcement telling me everything is fine when it clearly isn't!

Cheers,


TSM

Hmm, do they have enough spare trains to have a "hot spare" or two stationed at Moorgate for the evening peak? Then if there was any minor disruption they could send out an additional train from Moorgate to help fill in the gaps in the service.

I know it's not a good idea in theory, but in practice, it looks like that could be a better way of planning it - have a Baker Street departure at the same time as a city pulls in to Baker Street, then if the city train is late, there's a little more room to squeeze it in before the next Baker St. departure.

Cheers,

TSM

Moorgate has 2 side bays though, crossing into them needs a gap made in the inner rail service, and cannot be done in parallel with a bay departure. It'll provide the contingency you're looking for, but at the expense of more congestion on the IR for which your contingency is being provided.

My two pence, the Metropolitan (and SSR in general) would be served better in the big picture by getting rid of ex-city services in the peak... But that's perhaps something for the RIPAS board...

Case of too many aspiring Line Controllers!! "Divert a Watford to Uxbridge"!! What about all the Watford passengers on that train? There are also trains booked to go to Watford and Uxbridge that stable there in the early part of the evening, do we just divert them and then make the T/Ops late for their meal reliefs or finishing times because someone has to wait an extra 5 minutes for a train? Better still, we'll leave the stock balance incorrect, so that way we can cancel a train off Watford in the morning, leaving a 30 minute gap and keep the Uxbridge passengers happy! Or better still, divert an Amersham or Chesham to Uxbridge, as the next Uxbridge is 5 late and the one behind that 7 late!I think the Uxbridge branch is served well enough, while Watford only has a 15 minute service at best! Not all trains that go to Watford come back to London from about 18.00 onwards.
As for Moorgate, we are reluctant to put trains in there in the peak, unless absolutely necessary (train out of turn for stepping back, or a disruption to the service) as it delays both outer and inner rail when it goes in, and delays the inner rail again when it comes out. There are too many trains in the city in the peak to repeatedly delay in this fashion!

You guys are wicked!!!!

But I think, in addition, that Linecontroller66 is spot on here and that we all think there would be no problems if only we were in the controller's seat. One of the many things I learned in my working life was that many of us are far better at telling other people how to do their jobs than we are at doing our own. That's why I, as a non railwayman, post so much here!