|
Post by zbang on May 27, 2017 3:20:39 GMT
I've been reading about parly's (or parlies?)... first ran into them in a history of early railways, although the usage seems to have changed from a cheap workman's train to "We're not really abandoning this route, what makes you think that?" or as a way to keep the drivers familiar with uncommon routes.
By any usage, are there still any around London?
I've seen some older references to a South (West?) Ruislip -to- Paddington, South Ruislip -to- Morden, and Kensington Olympia -to- Wandsworth. Are those still running? Others?
Thx,
z! who might take one if it was convenient, otherwise just curious
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on May 27, 2017 5:33:56 GMT
I believe they are kept running in order for the line and it's stations not to be closed.
As you mentioned there is the one a day Chiltern Service which runs: South Ruislip - Paddington - South Ruislip - West Ruislip.
I believe Southern run parliamentary trains between certain stops too to prevent closures of otherwise unused sections of track.
And of course there is the once a day London Overground service to Battersea Park in order to keep the section of track between Wandsworth Road and Battersea Park open.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 5:44:51 GMT
The Chiltern train now does South Ruislip - Paddington - High Wycombe since the timetable change last week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 5:46:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 27, 2017 6:18:35 GMT
The Ealing Broadway-Olympia-Wandsworth Road service has now been withdrawn.
For many years there was a service to Croxley Green - latterly a taxi was provided because the line had been severed by a new road.
Does the Watford North curve count?
There is also a once-a-Saturday service from Liverpool Street to Enfield which runs via (but not calling at) South Tottenham
And the daily service from London Bridge to Beckenham Junction via Catford Bridge, using an otherwise disused curve between New Beckenham and Beckenham Junction.
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by Dom K on May 27, 2017 7:11:07 GMT
The Ealing Broadway-Olympia-Wandsworth Road service has now been withdrawn. For many years there was a service to Croxley Green - latterly a taxi was provided because the line had been severed by a new road. Does the Watford North curve count? There is also a once-a-Saturday service from Liverpool Street to Enfield which runs via (but not calling at) South Tottenham And the daily service from London Bridge to Beckenham Junction via Catford Bridge, using an otherwise disused curve between New Beckenham and Beckenham Junction. The Liverpool Street via South Tottenham to Enfield Town (0531 Liv St) is currently going via he usual routing via Stoke Newington because of the wiring (or lack of) on the GOBLIN and as such there is no wires over he junction leading to the Seven Sisters curve Incidentally I've been over the Seven Sisters curve, but not the above train! I was on the Stratford to Tottenham Hale train in the evening and we were on our way as far as Coppermill Junction and the driver announced that here was an incident at Tottenham Hale and we would divert to Seven Sisters! after a very slow crawl we progressed via South Tottenham upto Seven Sisters!
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 27, 2017 9:02:25 GMT
There are a couple of weird Chiltern Railways (presumably a mix of Parliamentary and route knowledge) services in/out of Baker Street on Saturday only. As you can see they are shown on the latest timetable linked below There is an 06.08 departure from Baker Street to Aylesbury, and a Chiltern service departing Aylesbury on Saturdays at 23.18 arrives at Baker Street on SUNDAY at 00.37. Inherently there must also be a couple of empty coaching stock moves involved as well. I wonder if the residents have twigged why their weekend beauty sleep is routinely disturbed by the sound of a diesel set operating into Baker Street. www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Timetable%20May%2021st%202017.pdf
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,419
|
Post by DWS on May 27, 2017 9:18:57 GMT
No Chiltern trains go to or from Baker Street.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 27, 2017 9:21:59 GMT
That Chiltern service is in light print in the timetable, so it is actually a connecting service provided by LU.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on May 27, 2017 9:59:20 GMT
And of course there is the once a day London Overground service to Battersea Park in order to keep the section of track between Wandsworth Road and Battersea Park open. Technically it's twice a day - once in the morning from Battersea Park and once in the evening in the other direction. It serves additionally for route knowledge as trains can be diverted there if there is a problem Clapham Junction or one of the many junctions between there and Wandsworth Road. The first and third times I travelled westbound on that bit of the Overground we were diverted!
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 27, 2017 14:24:40 GMT
That Chiltern service is in light print in the timetable, so it is actually a connecting service provided by LU. Where do you change on the service departing Aylesbury on Saturdays at 23.15 which arrives at Baker Street on SUNDAY at 00.37? (Saturdays from 15th October)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 14:49:22 GMT
That Chiltern service is in light print in the timetable, so it is actually a connecting service provided by LU. Where do you change on the service departing Aylesbury on Saturdays at 23.15 which arrives at Baker Street on SUNDAY at 00.37? (Saturdays from 15th October) Amersham - arrive 23:42, depart 23:47.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on May 27, 2017 17:10:59 GMT
The Chiltern train now does South Ruislip - Paddington - High Wycombe since the timetable change last week. Thanks, when does that depart Paddington? I'd been planning to visit the Hellfire Caves anyway. Also thanks for the PSUL link, quite comprehensive; however it doesn't have this train that I can see. (And my virus scanner does not like the Chiltern Trains web site.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 17:13:02 GMT
That Chiltern service is in light print in the timetable, so it is actually a connecting service provided by LU. Where do you change on the service departing Aylesbury on Saturdays at 23.15 which arrives at Baker Street on SUNDAY at 00.37? (Saturdays from 15th October) Chiltern Railways train 2C82 from Aylesbury arrives at Amersham platform 3 at 23:40, terminates, and then shunts into 34 siding. This is followed by Met train 412, all stations to Baker Street, which arrives in platform 3 from the north sidings at 23:46½, departing at 23:47½. The Chiltern Railways train then forms 5B75 and heads empty back to Aylesbury, presumably to stable in the sidings there, or perhaps to go into the DMU depot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 4:05:42 GMT
The Chiltern train now does South Ruislip - Paddington - High Wycombe since the timetable change last week. Thanks, when does that depart Paddington? I'd been planning to visit the Hellfire Caves anyway. Also thanks for the PSUL link, quite comprehensive; however it doesn't have this train that I can see. (And my virus scanner does not like the Chiltern Trains web site.) It leaves Paddington at about 1130 ish (1138 comes to mind without checking).
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 28, 2017 20:58:30 GMT
Strictly, a Parliamentary train was one running pursuant to an Act of 1844 (I believe that's the date - a piece of Gladstonian legislation) which required all train companies to provide at least a once a day all stations 3rd class service. That requirement disappeared with the 1948 nationalisation and (without having the 1844 Act to hand) it must have been a fairly loosely defined obligation as services came and went quite frequently (eg the various MR services to Kew). The services discussed earlier in this thread are often called "Parliamentary" but they owe their existence to the wish to avoid a closure case for a particular piece of track. Services that run for this reason don't have to run daily - there's the famous case in Lancashire which runs Sats only and in only one direction. The legal advice on what might trigger a closure was the removal of a service "on which people had come to rely" - hence a weekly service was one such. There are other complications: for example, when the last Willesden LL to Broad Street was withdrawn, the DTp lawyers had an agonised debate as to whether a closure case was required even tho' there was a continuing Willesden HL-Broad Street service. (in the end, it was regarded as "not a closure" - a pity - I had always liked that 0802 Willesden departure, as I had the train to myself...)
|
|
|
Post by stapler on May 28, 2017 21:17:58 GMT
This is all quite correct, and the modern usage of "Parliamentary train" is simply wrong. W S Gilbert parodies the idea in the Mikardo, though in fact riding on the buffers of an all-stop slow train might be more comfortable than those of an express. The term entered into the mythology of the Quintinshill collision in 1916,where one of the signalmen couldn't see (by checking the frame and instruments)the cause of the terrible accident, and his colleague replied "Good God, Jimmy, you've got the parly standing there" - meaning the slow train, "parked" on the main line with no protection.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 28, 2017 21:24:10 GMT
Services that run for this reason don't have to run daily - there's the famous case in Lancashire which runs Sats only and in only one direction. The Fridays only Stockport to Staylybridge service, which used to change direction with the summer/winter timetable. In December 2015 HWMBO and I took a charter train from Manchester to Bath which called at both Denton and Reddish South where passengers borded and alighted; we commented that we had doubled the number of trains calling there that week!
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 29, 2017 7:18:25 GMT
There is a further twiddle on all this, in that it has always been a subject of some difficulty as to whether the 1962/1968 statutory closure procedures actually applied equally to LU services. LU has tended to behave as if they did (probably just to be on the safe side), but DTp lawyers have also debated whether (a) the term "the Board" (ie BRB) in the legislation also included "the Executive" (ie LTE), and (b) whether LU should be allowed to create a precedent if they were not legally obliged to do so.
The issue for Parliamentary draftsmen (especially after rai lprivatisation) has been how to make the closure process bites on TOCs but not others such as preserved railways, or tramways or - horror - tram-trains. (The Rotherham case, if it is ever closed* will be a special treat for the lawyers). * It has to open first, of course....
It is likely that most if not all of the LU oddball services such as the Watford N curve are as much about rusty rails as avoidance of closure cases.
@rincewind - sorry, I meant "Friday".
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 29, 2017 9:32:42 GMT
Services that run for this reason don't have to run daily - there's the famous case in Lancashire which runs Sats only and in only one direction. The Fridays only Stockport to Staylybridge service, which used to change direction with the summer/winter timetable. Or you may be referring to the Halton Curve between Frodsham and Runcorn, which has a one-way service only on summer Saturdays. However, neither of these routes are in Lancashire - they are both in the historic county of Cheshire. The only such services in Lancashire are the two daily Lancaster to Leeds services (in that direction only) which run via Morecambe and use the Hest Bank curve (incidentally, if you want misnomers, Hest Bank is the only point on the West Coast Main Line where you can actually see the West Coast!) I don't think LU are subject to the same rules, but one might consider the remaining Olympia services, and those over the Watford North Curve, in this category. The infamous Croxley Green taxi, covering what may become an LU service in the future, was definitely another. As a word is defined by its usage, the modern usage of "parliamentary" is well-understood, and the services are sanctioned by parliament in the sense that parliament passed the law which requires them to be run (the Transport Act 1962). However, the term could equally be applied to lines opened or re-opened under the Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981 (the "Speller Act") which allows trial services to be withdrawn within five years without going through the formal closure process. Nearly all services opened under this act have survived, but Kettering Corby branch was re-opened in 1987 and closed again in 1990, before being reopened again in 2009. Other examples which have closed are the Sheepcote Lane curve in Battersea, used by through Waterloo-South Wales services and the Night Riviera to connect with Eurostar at Waterloo, and the temporary facilities at Heathrow Junction used before the Heathrow Express tunnels were completed. As for riding on the buffers, as mandated by the Mikado - I'm not convinced that riding that way on a train which stops and starts frequently (probably with a severe jolt each time) and takes all day would be a much less of a punishment than doing so on a high speed but possibly smoother running express - the ordeal would certainly be over more quickly!
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 30, 2017 6:53:40 GMT
norbitonflyer - well, all train services have had to be sanctioned by parliament. Technically, what requires them (as distinct from merely enables them) to run these days is any PSO imposed by the 1993 Act as amended, although again, the imposition of the PSO itself is not actually specified in the 93 Act,merely pursuant to it. Same goes for the 1962 Act (and the amending 1968 Act); I used to write the periodic letter to BR telling them to do this -effectively, the whole of the national railway service - (and sign the letters permitting them to discontinue all services at closure) , but I am glad the letters didn't create "DTp trains", let alone "Hewett trains"... No such letter was generated for LU, although the LT Chairman obviously received, after 1984, a periodic letter from the Secretary of State telling him what was to be delivered. I think, on balance, the legal opinion was that LU were exempt from the closure process and that they could drop services from their PSO without going through the closure procedure (as could, of course, other public transport operators such as bus services*). Problems may -theoretically - arise where another operator such as T&W or LU has taken over bits of the ex-BR infrastructure and services should they ever wish to close them. It would be a lawyers' treat to consider the question in relation to the Drain, for example...** The privy assumption within Whitehall was that such instances were likelyto be so remote as to be not worth fretting over. *Before any smart**** points out, I do know that bus services provided under the 1987 Act which enabled the Board to provide a bus ervice in substitution for a train service must, themselves be subject to a closure process (as has happened recently in the infamous Stone case) but that is the exception that proves the otherwise universal truth. **Damn! Never considered that at the time I was organising its transfer (and I would have shut up about it if I'd remembered anyway)
|
|
|
Post by 35b on May 30, 2017 7:07:48 GMT
norbitonflyer - well, all train services have had to be sanctioned by parliament. Technically, what requires them (as distinct from merely enables them) to run these days is any PSO imposed by the 1993 Act as amended, although again, the imposition of the PSO itself is not actually specified in the 93 Act,merely pursuant to it. Same goes for the 1962 Act (and the amending 1968 Act); I used to write the periodic letter to BR telling them to do this -effectively, the whole of the national railway service - (and sign the letters permitting them to discontinue all services at closure) , but I am glad the letters didn't create "DTp trains", let alone "Hewett trains"... No such letter was generated for LU, although the LT Chairman obviously received, after 1984, a periodic letter from the Secretary of State telling him what was to be delivered. I think, on balance, the legal opinion was that LU were exempt from the closure process and that they could drop services from their PSO without going through the closure procedure (as could, of course, other public transport operators such as bus services*). Problems may -theoretically - arise where another operator such as T&W or LU has taken over bits of the ex-BR infrastructure and services should they ever wish to close them. It would be a lawyers' treat to consider the question in relation to the Drain, for example...** The privy assumption within Whitehall was that such instances were likelyto be so remote as to be not worth fretting over. *Before any smart**** points out, I do know that bus services provided under the 1987 Act which enabled the Board to provide a bus ervice in substitution for a train service must, themselves be subject to a closure process (as has happened recently in the infamous Stone case) but that is the exception that proves the otherwise universal truth. **Damn! Never considered that at the time I was organising its transfer (and I would have shut up about it if I'd remembered anyway) Out of interest, what legal processes did the closures to regular service of the Ongar and Aldwych branches go through in 1994, or Charing Cross (Jubilee) more recently?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 30, 2017 7:31:00 GMT
35b - I don't know about Ongar or CX, not being directly involved in either,although I have a distinct impression that they simply closed (CX having effectively done so years before). It was the Aldwych case which caused the most internal debate as I recall, not least because the London Regional Passengers Committee* (or whatever it was called at the time) kicked up such a fuss; I'm not sure what finally happened - AIRI there was a compromise which led to a "closure-like" non-statutory consultation. * Ongar wasn't a problem - it was outside LRPC's jurisdiction and the East of England equivalent was a paper tiger/poodle, and CX had so obviously been closed never to reopen so long ago, but Aldwych was something of a self-inflicted wound because LU gave the impression that it might re-open (like Mornington Crescent)if only the money for the lifts could be found.
|
|
|
Post by 35b on May 30, 2017 8:28:02 GMT
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 30, 2017 9:25:21 GMT
35b - your question prompted me to go into the basement to dig out a copy of the 1962 and 1993 Acts. In the light of looking at those, I'd like to modify slightly my comments. I now think the 1962 Act applied to LTE/LRT, even if my colleagues who dealt with LT dithered at the time of the Ongar closure. To be fair to them, the 1962 closure provision (buried in half a line in s56(8) of the Act) depends on a further raft of Common Law interpretations as to what "all railway services " means (the advice I received in relation to closures suggested that it meant "services on which passengers had come to rely" - as you can imagine, the scope for argument there is enormous, and you can see in the cases of CX and Aldwych that that definition would hardly apply after such long passages of time being non-operational. The 1993 Act turned all this on its head. S37 ( a really badly drafted piece of legislation, like the rest of the Act, full of double negatives) bites on services not covered by a franchise agreement (see what I mean) but does not apply to services exempted by the Secretary of State (not defined anywhere). Quite where this leaves LU (or indeed preserved railways, the T&W metro or cliff lifts) is obscure. It would be entirely possible for the SoS to exempt all LU closures from the process since 1993, and maybe that is what happened with Aldwych and CX? Confused? So were successive Franchising Directors and regulators.
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 4, 2017 12:29:03 GMT
It is likely that most if not all of the LU oddball services such as the Watford N curve are as much about rusty rails as avoidance of closure cases. The trains which run on the north curve would be needed anyway for stock moves so would run anyway so are not rusty rail moves, they do carry the occasional passenger so they may as well run in service, I suppose. ( Rusty rail moves are moves over track which would never be if the normal service pattern always ran, in order to test points etc).
|
|