Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 20, 2010 14:18:28 GMT
+1 for geofftech!! Prophecy is art of subjectively choosing supporting evidence and then reading into it further. Course you can always diplomatically hedge your bets  So whats the reason then, a good will gesture to the folk of Chesham? Or have the managers that live up there been handing out the good cigars to the right people? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 20, 2010 15:15:53 GMT
Shuttle back today as a 4-car as part of the Met's response to adverse weather! Just as I was told might happen weeks ago and posted on here. Given that this prophecy was shouted down forgive me a little smile today when I arrived at work to find it had come to pass!
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Dec 20, 2010 15:20:52 GMT
May I just remind that history has shown that there have been numerous instances over the last few decades where those whose job it is to control the railway have said that it would be a mistake to get rid of .... usually crossovers. As I have said before, North Ealing's was the first that I heard of when I joined LURS in the 1970s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 15:32:48 GMT
I can’t help but look at the irony of the current situation regarding 2 branches that are not geographically that far apart yes the St Albans Abbey – Watford branch. This branch is now going to be isolated from the main network and run by trams once this is done there will be no going back like has occurred today. How come solutions for 2 similar lines are diametrically different?
How about converting a few A60’s to work from 750V DC overhead and transferring them to this branch as it will be cheaper German tram? Maybe I should contact Watford Council with this idea as it is barmy enough for the average politician to think it is a great idea and adopt!
Xerces Fobe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 18:56:31 GMT
Gauge clearance !
(+ expense of maintaining the stock , which also has no gangway access for revenue protection)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 22:02:38 GMT
if railways or any other form of transport were simply businesses then they would nearly all close down. They are actually an economic enabling tool which why governments these days are so keen on them. Beeching days are long gone and we are in another world today thankfully. The days of road expansion are over...take a look at the current transport budget and where the cuts are. I think you misunderstand me ML. I question the viability of this branch, not through maliciousness but through study of recent events. You're correct, Beeching is long gone, but you are also mistaken if you think that Tfl will run a non profit making or inconvenient branch as an economic enabling tool. If that were the case they'd never have shut Ongar and North Weald, which has now been replaced by buses. Like you, I'd rather see the trains believe me. I love trains. But the Chesham situation, as far as Tfl are concerned, may well prove beyond immediate economic salvage in years to come. |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Dec 20, 2010 22:34:03 GMT
I'd be happy to see the branch go if Amersham Hill didn't turn into car park in the peaks and Carousel ran some buses after tea time.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 21, 2010 0:55:24 GMT
One slightly cheaper possibility to get around some of the problems with trains waiting to get onto the branch would be to redesign the junction at Chalfont and Latimer, maybe when the line is resignalled.
The branch track is parallel to the Amersham tracks for a long way west of the station and it would be possible redesign the layout so that a Chesham bound train would be able to wait clear of the trains running to/from Amersham. This could be achieved with one extra crossover where the Chesham line currently diverges. Northbound Chesham trains could use the current branch track, Southbound trains could leave the branch track at the divergence. Northbound trains would therefore be kept out of the way of the Amersham route if there are delays.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 21, 2010 1:16:15 GMT
One slightly cheaper possibility to get around some of the problems with trains waiting to get onto the branch would be to redesign the junction at Chalfont and Latimer, maybe when the line is resignalled. As I understand it, that is the current plan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 1:21:14 GMT
Alternatively completely get rid of the Chesham branch in its current state and do this: i.imgur.com/ozmcv.jpgEliminates the need for two separate destinations and a silly branch right near the end of the line - all trains call at both Amersham and Chesham. Fewer residential properties along the route thus allowing more people to get some sleep at night. Line would be doubled and there would be 2 platforms at Chesham - no complicated crossovers needed! 50/60mph running would be possible because of the straight nature of the layout. Chiltern Railways could also run to Chesham during peak hours, keeps all the snobs on their trains happy  Just a thought  |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 21, 2010 2:00:41 GMT
Mod Comment.
Any further discussion on bengley's idea is best continued in the RIPAS board.
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 21, 2010 7:24:36 GMT
Chiltern Railways could also run to Chesham during peak hours, keeps all the snobs on their trains happy You moan elsewhere about not being taken seriously due to your age and then you come out with a comment like this? Have a word with yourself. THC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 9:50:09 GMT
One slightly cheaper possibility to get around some of the problems with trains waiting to get onto the branch would be to redesign the junction at Chalfont and Latimer, maybe when the line is resignalled. As I understand it, that is the current plan. When is the north end of the Met currently scheduled to be resignalled? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 9:54:09 GMT
I think you misunderstand me ML. I question the viability of this branch, not through maliciousness but through study of recent events. You're correct, Beeching is long gone, but you are also mistaken if you think that Tfl will run a non profit making or inconvenient branch as an economic enabling tool. If that were the case they'd never have shut Ongar and North Weald, which has now been replaced by buses. Like you, I'd rather see the trains believe me. I love trains. But the Chesham situation, as far as Tfl are concerned, may well prove beyond immediate economic salvage in years to come. Glad to hear you aren't Beeching's ghost I just think that it is very unlikely to be closed and that there is too much of an attitude displayed on this board that closure is the simplest (and therefore only likely) solution. Politically, it would be very difficult, especially as government policy is to encourage modal shift from cars to trains. Abandoning Chesham would massively undermine that objective which is set, not through some random whim, but because of climate change and transport capacity requirements. HS2 is a very hot (and unpopular) topic in the Tory heartlands of the Chilterns, yet the government are very vocally pushing it. They wouldn't do that if they didn't think they had to, for sure. TfL don't just act independently. Whether or not they think the Chesham service is a nuisance or unjustified, they are not able to take decisions without reference to political factors. If they did that, Crossrail would already have been built and the Jubilee Line would now be the one we are getting excited about construction beginning. Regarding Epping-Ongar, it seems to me that was a mistake made in a time when less was understood about rail v road planning. The housing being built round Ongar and that part of Essex would almost certainly secure the line's future if it had not already been closed due to the need for sustainability in transport planning. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 21, 2010 10:01:52 GMT
The Epping to Ongar branch closed because Essex County Council refused the money to support the service, don't forget that it was outside the GL area.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Dec 21, 2010 10:36:29 GMT
Mr MC quoted previously The bay won't be going anywhere fast, and will still be technically "serviceable." Seems that he is again prophetic, and for one this member admires what he & colleagues achieve. ;D ;D Unfortunately, it comes from too many years on the job. After a while this sort of thing begins to form a pattern. MetControlReply #256 on Dec 18, 2010, 1:59pmThe shuttle is dead. Please get over suggesting any further shuttle ideas. The shuttle will never operate as it did again. Except that, by popular demand on DDs forum, I decided you all deserved a few more "last days of the shuttle." Don't believe me? are you sure about that? :-) Perfectly sure actually. To split hairs if we must, the shuttle is not operating as it did, and is not operating to any specific timetable. None of the shuttle runs are scheduled. The shuttle does not take a scheduled "break" in the morning and evening peaks to allow through services. It is a bit of a massive u-turn, but I think under the circumstances would anyone really criticise us for doing "the right thing" and providing what we can, whilst we can still provide it - that is we still have the bay and we still have 4-car units. But don't by any means assume that the temporary measure we have taken will become permanent. The full timetable will be re-introduced at a later date once the crewing and weather issues have all been resolved. (If someone would like to bookmark this page, then in a few weeks I have no doubt that if we encounter further problems, someone here will allow me to eat my words.) |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 21, 2010 11:21:47 GMT
The Epping to Ongar branch closed because Essex County Council refused the money to support the service, don't forget that it was outside the GL area. So is Chesham. Does Bucks CC pay something to TfL for services beyond Moor Park? |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Dec 21, 2010 11:29:54 GMT
MODERATOR COMMENT
Please refrain from the name calling......
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 21, 2010 11:41:47 GMT
The Epping to Ongar branch closed because Essex County Council refused the money to support the service, don't forget that it was outside the GL area. So is Chesham. Does Bucks CC pay something to TfL for services beyond Moor Park? The situation may be a bit different, the tracks south of Amersham belong to TfL who are paid access charges by Chilton. The Ongar branch was a stand alone affair. Also to run more trains would have required a new sub station, the line as it was could only run one train at a time and then it was sluggish towards the Ongar end of the branch due to voltage drop. There was also some very doubtful financial shenanigans going on at the time. Some of those new houses built at North Weald are on former railway owned property that was handed over to the developers on condition that they supported the service. Once the developer had built and sold the houses they went into liquidation! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 11:57:55 GMT
 That's gonna be a hell of a complicated manoeuvre! |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 21, 2010 12:21:22 GMT
Back....by popular demand.
One more chance to enjoy...
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 21, 2010 12:26:25 GMT
Alternatively completely get rid of the Chesham branch in its current state and do this: i.imgur.com/ozmcv.jpgEliminates the need for two separate destinations and a silly branch right near the end of the line - all trains call at both Amersham and Chesham. Fewer residential properties along the route thus allowing more people to get some sleep at night. Line would be doubled and there would be 2 platforms at Chesham - no complicated crossovers needed! 50/60mph running would be possible because of the straight nature of the layout. Chiltern Railways could also run to Chesham during peak hours, keeps all the snobs on their trains happy Just a thought Or a new triangle at Chalfont to allow trains to serve both termini a la Wick and Thurso. |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Dec 21, 2010 12:46:05 GMT
they really did not have any option,the weather/gods' are the ultimate line controller.what this does underline is that a through service cannot be sustained on that distance of single track effectively,they chose the worst time of the year to try,but on the other hand if it had worked it would have stood some of the worst the weather can throw.they could not let this disrupt the whole line.
what the future holds remain to be seen lt did try and close the ongar branch previously,the chesham line much like mill hill east were borne from future expansion ideas in the latter case to edgware.when in finchley recently there is a bus service to mill hill east station,but the idea of a bus service from amersham to chesham to replace any closure will be hit with long traffic queues from amersham for the evening rush and add to misery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 19:09:30 GMT
One slightly cheaper possibility to get around some of the problems with trains waiting to get onto the branch would be to redesign the junction at Chalfont and Latimer, maybe when the line is resignalled. As I understand it, that is the current plan. Really? I thought that's what I suggested several pages back and got shot down for my trouble! Just to reiterate: As I see it there are only two viable solutions - this is one of them and the other is an extension of the bay platform (including moving the existing junction N/W to accomodate it). I can't imagine either of these measures being anywhere near as expensive as the 1986 bridge replacements. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 21, 2010 19:58:21 GMT
As I understand it, that is the current plan. Really? I thought that's what I suggested several pages back and got shot down for my trouble! Just to reiterate: As I see it there are only two viable solutions - this is one of them and the other is an extension of the bay platform (including moving the existing junction N/W to accomodate it). I can't imagine either of these measures being anywhere near as expensive as the 1986 bridge replacements. Apologies for missing your suggestions (although I have suggested extending Chalfont bay previously). They were a long way back in the thread when I replied. However, I didn't notice them getting shot down, most of the 'shooting down' comments seemed aimed at suggestions from other people that the Chesham bay be reinstated or a loop installed on the branch itself. |
|
|
|
Post by deadmans on Dec 22, 2010 7:35:04 GMT
5116 is the shuttle. Happy days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2010 9:21:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Dec 22, 2010 23:20:27 GMT
Hi All This is my first post,so be gentle. Firstly .I take my hat off to those involved in bringing back the Chesham Shuttle at short notice(if only Temporary) .Quick thinking me thinks.Thank's for that,you have helped a lot of people to get to Work. Secondly.I'm really glad i Lurked on this Forum.It has really opened my eyes to the problems regarding the Met up here.It's a real Eye opener finding out some really interesting Stuff.This has relieved the Stress as a Commuter.Also many thanks to the Lady Driver who waited for the delayed 2056 Chiltern Train at L.Chalfont tonight  Thirdly Merry Christmas to all. ;D Regards Coops |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Dec 23, 2010 11:08:32 GMT
Welcome cooperman ;D
I'm glad that as a commuter - who has probably had to endure many weeks of disruption - that through the power of this place you have hopefully seen that those of us responsible have not just sat back and done nothing. We do find that Met customers are on the whole a pretty patient bunch, but the problems of late have probably stretched this patience to the limit (the various Customer Champion organisations have made their feelings very clear.)
Merry Christmas to you too ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 23, 2010 11:28:32 GMT
As we are aware the shuttle operated after the official and timetabled 'last shuttle'. I wonder if this will cause arguments on this forum and others in future years as to when the last shuttle actually ran, indeed there may well be further shuttles as long as the bay at Chalfont is usable and four car stock is available.
|
|
