|
|
Post by harlesden on Oct 6, 2010 23:49:00 GMT
When the LPTB came into being, it was decided that the Met north of Amersham should be closed on the basis that the area could not be considered part of London Transport.
Shouldn't Amersham/Chesham commuters consider themselves fortunate that Amersham was chosen as the northern terminus rather than Rickmansworth which is itself outside Greater London and is home to a major depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 7, 2010 8:36:26 GMT
I've never known such doom and gloom 'It will NEVER work' mongering for such a straight forward piece of railway timetabling/operation !!! I'm certainly not of the doom and gloom department, and this is nothing like the new Circle (which I have more or less always supported.) However... Timetabling is one thing, operation is another. When disruption occurs, do not always assume trains will run late. A shutdown at somewhere like Wembley will mean trains being sent back north off path. For the likes of Watford, Uxbridge and Amersham we have somewhere to put them, and can fairly easily cover all 3 branches, without the need to work out detailed "there and back" run times. With the Chesham service added into the mix, and a single-line branch, things are a little different. Yes diversions can be made to keep the branch covered, but it's not as flexible as the rest of the line. There will be larger gaps to Chesham during disruption than the other branches - whereas before the shuttle would run up and down unaffected by anything except it's own line. Add to this the Leaf-fall season. Normally, failures and poor rail head conditions mean the shuttle is "locked-in" to prevent delays to it and the main line. Cannot happen once the new timetable is in. So by this time next year we will have seen delays to Chesham due to problems in the City, or on the flip-side, the whole line maybe disrupted due to failures on the Chesham single. That's never been seen before ;D |
|
|
|
Post by harlesden on Oct 7, 2010 8:51:16 GMT
Give the Chalfont-Chesham line to London Overground and they can run a 172 up and down without affecting the Met at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldenham on Oct 7, 2010 11:19:08 GMT
It does strike me as odd, that only a couple of years after the only other single track branch on LUL, that to Mill Hill East, changed to mainly a shuttle working to improve reliability of the service, the exact reverse seems to be being done on the Met.
Or are the differences beween one line and another so great, that the Northern's experience can't be learned from.
Also I can't wait to hear the whoops of joy from fellow late evening commuters at now having a direct service from such exotic places as Preston Rd! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 12:06:23 GMT
I look forward to experiencing all the new exciting names for Chesham that (usually rather English-challenged) announcers at Finchley Road will invent ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 7, 2010 12:19:54 GMT
It does strike me as odd, that only a couple of years after the only other single track branch on LUL, that to Mill Hill East, changed to mainly a shuttle working to improve reliability of the service, the exact reverse seems to be being done on the Met. Or are the differences beween one line and another so great, that the Northern's experience can't be learned from. The introduction of through services is twofold. Firstly, residents campaigned for through services throughout the day. Secondly, the introduction of S-stock next year - and the fact that they are fixed 8-car trains - means that the bay road at Chalfont is too short. Lengthening it would be a waste of money - if you want a self contained shuttle then have a train that fits the infrastructure. Besides, it would be very wasteful to have an 8-car train running backwards and forwards. Don't get me wrong, the through service will work well for a large percentage of the time. But my points were that in the event of trouble elsewhere, the service may be hard to manage and users of the branch will, for the first time, become fully involved with service delays. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 12:46:23 GMT
[/quote]Don't get me wrong, the through service will work well for a large percentage of the time. But my points were that in the event of trouble elsewhere, the service may be hard to manage and users of the branch will, for the first time, become fully involved with service delays.[/quote]
Hence why I think some alterations to the track layout at Chalfont so a NB train can be held off the main line whilst waiting for the branch to become clear - 2 extra points and associated signalling??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 12:49:15 GMT
Give the Chalfont-Chesham line to London Overground and they can run a 172 up and down without affecting the Met at all. No. It's already electrified. Use some random full-size thing that's DC and not over 3/4 cars. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Oct 7, 2010 15:29:45 GMT
This is assuming that the bay at Chalfont will be maintained. Presumably it will though?
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 7, 2010 15:32:37 GMT
Changes to the layout and using other trains almost belong in the ideas section.
There's track (albeit single) pointwork to get you on and off the branch, and when everything is running to plan the through service will work.
We will overcome the problems we may face with the new service, and no doubt myself and my colleagues will develop new strategies to avoid serious gaps in services.
It is a service improvement being made at the all important "zero cost." There is no money (or real justification) to change the infrastructure or rolling stock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 16:26:09 GMT
End of the Chesham branch maybe - How long will it be before the powers that be look for budget cuts and will not be able to justified an 8 car unit working the branch?
Could always purchase a few Chinese batteries and convert it to a tramway ;D
Xerces Fobe
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 7, 2010 16:44:02 GMT
End of the Chesham branch maybe - How long will it be before the powers that be look for budget cuts and will not be able to justified an 8 car unit working the branch? Why would running an eight car train through to Chesham be any more or less justified than running an eight car train to Amersham? Diverting the two Amersham trains per hour to Chesham, as planned, will probably cost less than running the existing shuttle, as the shuttle will no longer need to be crewed and there will be one less unit needed. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Oct 7, 2010 17:09:36 GMT
It does strike me as odd, that only a couple of years after the only other single track branch on LUL, that to Mill Hill East, Olympia is also a single track branch... |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Oct 7, 2010 17:22:42 GMT
A while back I was pondering the problems of through services while waiting at Chalfont and came up with the same answer as Chris M. I have seen through trains diverted to Amersham and the shuttle run through the peak often enough to feel that there is a need. Pity the money isn't there.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Oct 7, 2010 17:45:25 GMT
A while back I was pondering the problems of through services while waiting at Chalfont and came up with the same answer as Chris M. I have seen through trains diverted to Amersham and the shuttle run through the peak often enough to feel that there is a need. Pity the money isn't there. Other than the fact that they want all the A Stock gone, is there a physical reason why the existing 4 car shuttle couldn't remain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 17:58:35 GMT
A while back I was pondering the problems of through services while waiting at Chalfont and came up with the same answer as Chris M. I have seen through trains diverted to Amersham and the shuttle run through the peak often enough to feel that there is a need. Pity the money isn't there. Other than the fact that they want all the A Stock gone, is there a physical reason why the existing 4 car shuttle couldn't remain? Chalfont bay road, apparently. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 7, 2010 18:05:34 GMT
Also a non-standard unit would cost more money to maintain than another train of the same type as the rest of the fleet. Converting it to a tramway might sound attractive, but you'd have the same issues of non-standard stock and would either need to buy stock that could run to Neasden or build a maintenance facility on the branch (and I have no idea if there is a location that might be suitable for this). It might (or might not) work as part of a wider Calfont, Latimer and/or Chesham tram/light rail system - but that really does belong in on the ideas board!
If you're going to run it other than as part of the Met then the most logical thing to do would be for Chiltern to operate as they have stock that would be suitable and the skills and facilities to operate and maintain it. However I've seen this suggested on the forum before, and I think someone with more knowledge than me said on that occasion that informal discussions indicated that Chiltern weren't interested.
This doesn't really surprise me as the branch as a self-contained entity can't be very (if at all) profitable, and unless Chiltern were to run direct Marylebone-Chesham services (which would be subject to all the same possible problems as direct Aldgate/Baker Street to Chesham services) then LU would get the majority of the income for Chesham passengers travelling beyond Chalfont & Latimer - doubly so if through Met services remained as now (and there seems to be a desire for these).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 7, 2010 18:26:56 GMT
This is assuming that the bay at Chalfont will be maintained. Presumably it will though? It will probably be retained, at least until resignalling happens, but there's little prospect for anything using it. Even a rusty rails move will be difficult to arrange - they're not going to run a 4-car A stock train up there just for that, the only other option is to shunt an empty Chiltern train into and out of the bay road - but this is problematic because only a 2-car class 165, or maybe 3-car, would fit. |
|
|
|
Post by doug on Oct 7, 2010 19:56:17 GMT
It's already electrified. Use some random full-size thing that's DC and not over 3/4 cars. Sounds a good use for one of the 313s which Southern are being criticised for taking... I don't think the lack of toilets would be an issue on the short branch to Chesham. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 7, 2010 20:02:33 GMT
Looks like a job for a Parry People Mover to me! After all, if the rest of the Southerners around Birmingham can cope, then surely the London Southerners can!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2010 20:14:49 GMT
Would a Chiltern 165 fit in Chesham Station? - Why not hand a portion of the operation of the Chesham Branch to Chiltern - allow both to operate an improved frequency over the branch.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 7, 2010 22:04:40 GMT
I think we've established that Chiltern DON'T want to run the branch.
What worries me is if there is a disruption, will Watford local trains be diverted to keep Chesham going?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2010 22:21:21 GMT
However I've seen this suggested on the forum before, and I think someone with more knowledge than me said on that occasion that informal discussions indicated that Chiltern weren't interested. This doesn't really surprise me as the branch as a self-contained entity can't be very (if at all) profitable, and unless Chiltern were to run direct Marylebone-Chesham services (which would be subject to all the same possible problems as direct Aldgate/Baker Street to Chesham services) then LU would get the majority of the income for Chesham passengers travelling beyond Chalfont & Latimer - doubly so if through Met services remained as now (and there seems to be a desire for these). I bet Chiltern would run the shuttle if TfL paid them enough. Especially if they got another class 172 to run it. (Perhaps add one to the current production run: both LOROL and Chiltern will have them anyway). Solves the revenue problem - farebox still goes to TfL. (This is the way the buses are run: TfL takes the fare revenue,and pays the operators to run the service). Keep the through trains, using S stock. I have often wondered, if it had been known in 1960 that the GC would be closed north of Aylesbury a few years later, whether LT operation would still have been truncated at Amersham. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 8, 2010 10:57:59 GMT
As has so often happened with this sort of debate, we're going round in circles.
The Chesham shuttle as is will be stopping. LU want to keep the branch open, which is why the option of through trains was chosen - it kills 2 or more birds with one stone. The people of Chesham get their through service. The bay does not need to be expensively extended. The S-stock will fit. The need to keep trains that can operate the shuttle disappears (there have been availability issues in the past with the double-ended units, and you cannot substitute with anything else.
Nobody else has been offered to run it, as you also get the piles of red tape needed to sign the branch off, organise movements on to and off the branch.
I've said it a few times already in this threa, and I'll say it again. Operating the new timetable during a normal service day will not cause any issues whatsoever. The main point I made was that when things do go wrong, Chesham will now join everyone else in having a share of the pain - and because of the way in which we can operate over the single line, it may be a little worse for them than they expected.
Metman, I can assure you that if we need to steal a train to cover the Chesham branch, every consideration will be given before doing it. I've no doubt that favourite choices will be Amershams with a following Chiltern and Watfords.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 8, 2010 18:12:40 GMT
Metcontrol, that would be a sensible choice I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2010 1:55:13 GMT
How comes that Chesham will now have through trains from London whilst St Ablans Abbey will have any chance of through trains to London stopped forever when the Chinese AAA ;)trams come into service? One could be forgiven for thinking that it that it would be a better option to put the battery  of Chinese trams on the Chesham branch and run 8 car Class 350 from Euston to St Albans Abbey. Basically all this stupidity is due to damned accountants and the like - Look a little further the Class 158's on the Lymington branch, the farce that is the Truro -Falmouth Branch which has cost millions of pounds and produced trains of half the size running twice as often. Then there is the Newquay branch........ My apologies or distress caused by for an earlier post from me when I referred to a Guided Busway I meant to say a Misguided Busway ;D More on this story when I return from my travels next week. Revisited an MBTA branch - a breath of fresh air  more details soon Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Oct 9, 2010 2:54:55 GMT
Metman, I can assure you that if we need to steal a train to cover the Chesham branch, every consideration will be given before doing it. I've no doubt that favourite choices will be Amershams with a following Chiltern and Watfords. Any chance of an Uxbridge train having to cover the run to Chesham? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2010 9:53:04 GMT
Uxbridge is the busier of the branches and I'm sure will only be used as a last resort.
I do wonder why there couldn't be a Watford - Chesham service or Rickmansworth - Chesham service. Although probably would require a second train and therefore a no starter on the basis of cost.
Once the new timetable starts, will the direct Chesham services retain their "status" as "hell should freeze over before they're cancelled" ? (although I note that it was cancelled from Aldgate on yesterday, Friday)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 9, 2010 10:21:59 GMT
One option, although not the best is to run a Northwood-Chesham service. It would be like a longer version of the shuttle but also open up new travel option via Moor Park. Perhaps this service could slot in just after the Chiltern service?
It would also be interesting to see if a shuttle could be run when the Amersham service drops down to 2tph in the late evenings and reverse using either plat 1 or 2 at Chalfont. After all, if the service frequency is low, the reversing train will not block anything else?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 9, 2010 11:12:21 GMT
I do wonder why there couldn't be a Watford - Chesham service If the Croxley Link ever happens *, I suspect travel patterns on the Watford branch will change dramatically. Previous users will have an alternative route to Harrow, Wembley, and the Euston area which will be faster for many of them. But, conversely, there must be plenty of potential for journeys to Watford Junction from Rickmansworth. Could the timetable support diversion of the Watford branch service to run to Chesham (2 tph) and Amersham (the rest) - or even Aylesbur - with connections at Rickmansworth for passengers from the Watford branch who want Baker Street. (* and we'll have wing of pork for dinner) |
|
of Chinese trams on the Chesham branch and run 8 car Class 350 from Euston to St Albans Abbey.
more details soon
