tube changes add to chesham journey times

Maybe ;D

It is more than the current weekend timetable - but well within the number of trains we have, so stock should not be an issue at weekends at least.

However, the weekday timetable does see 49 trains for the morning peak, and a grand total of 50 trains operating in the evening peak . We currently operate 48 trains peak. We operated 49 during WTT 329.

The continuing introduction of S-stock will hopefully keep ahead of this demand for trains, but even so it does add a little more pressure on the depot until the deliveries are much more advanced, and we have more S-stock than A.

Having had a very in depth conversation yesterday with 3 senior members of management from various lines, all were of the same opinion that there is no benefit in this timetable to the majority of Met line customers, and none could understand why we have rolled over so easily to accommodate the Pinner whingers group. One also commented that while other companies seek to reduce travel times, over the last few years the Met line appears to be intent on increasing it! As expected, it looks like this is the baby of one individual in particular who seems intent on changing the whole running pattern of the Met line, one that has been succesful for many years ;D ;D

Yes, at least LU did a full consultation over the Chesham through service, Pinner just moaned!

The Chesham consultation happened because Chesham moaned. A less public consultation did happen with the likes of Pinner - we don't simply change our service because someone wants us to.

I'd be interested in the merits of the new timetable for service recovery. To me it seems that it is far more complex and difficult to reinstate services in the event of a problem. I, however am a building surveyor, not a signalman so perhaps you could shed some light on this for us lay folk.

A tfl document of febuary 2009 highlights some interesting comments as to the the through train proposals,notably there is broad support not over whelming for the changes'.not least.


• Research shows that one of the most
important factors to customers is
overall journey time.


www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/amersham-chesham-consultation-report-feb09.pdf

Well whose baby is it because every other manager you talk to is pointing the finger at the same person?
I know i thought the Circle wouldn't work, and must admit it has, but this is a whole different concept for a line that for the last umpteen years has run fast and slow trains. Now, apart from the peaks, the fast trains are being withdrawn to suit people who aren't happy with a 10 minute service! And don't say it's not them because their MP was in our very office and made the point about how they need more trains and didn't like seeing trains belting up and down the fast lines!
Where will the service recovery options come from? Oh, hang on, lets divert a train down the fast line because the local line is screwed!! That is a real advance in running a railway, and should be used as an example to others! ;D ;D

As a leisure user as I have said before I currently prefer to use the MET line due to cost - The journey time over to Amersham from Wycombe by car is around 15 minutes, the journey then into Baker is 49 minutues?

Factor in car parking and walking to the station and were looking at a journey time of around 1hr 15 minutes. Now, whilst the cost when using my Oyster is cheaper and offers me better value than the £20! return Chiltern offer from Wycombe the increased journey time (I know it seems like a small change) will really add to the journey.

After 40 minutes I begin to get a little twitchy thinking will this journey ever end? And I have on many occasions said to myself I will use the Chiltern mainline in future - BUT as I have an interest in the tube network that coupled with the value tends to keep me travelling on the met.

However, with these new greatly improved journey times from Wycombe it means that from my house to Marylebone would take me around 30 minutes door to station exit. Now whilst I may be paying a little more for the service it is more reliable and now a lot, lot quicker.

It's a shame as I do love the Met - A railway with real character but these longer journey times really takes away any draw that it used to have.

I just feel sorry for the commuters who will be loosing literally hours of their lives over the weeks/months/years due to this decision.

As many people have said, improvements to railways always mean faster journey times - thats how nearly all railway companies market themselves, "Get to XYZ now in under X amount of minutes etc".

Just a big shame really.

Since you are talking about going from High Wycombe Mikeyr1234 then you have 6 trains per hour to choose from, when compared to the 4tph from Amersham and Beaconsfield I mentioned previously.

If you plan your journey, you might be fortunate to get one of the very comfortable Class 67 loco hauled 'silver trains'!

The average speed of an 1 hour Aylesbury - London train (38 miles) is obviously 38mph. If you only take the section south of Amersham (23.5 miles in 39 mins), this average speed drops to 36mph. To contrast, if you take the Network Rail owned section between Aylesbury and Amersham, the average speed is 43mph (15 miles in 21 minutes).

The average speed of a 47 minute Fast Amersham - Baker St train (23 mile distance) is only 30mph! If 7 minutes are added to this service, then the average speed drops to 26mph. Contrast this to the car, which takes 47 minutes* to complete an Amersham - Baker St journey of 28.5 miles with an average speed of 36mph.

So the car looks like a credible alternative to many off-peak users.

*From Google - quite a conservative time.

Of course, a car gets expensive if you want to travel into the center of London during the week, rather than just Baker Street itself, as you have the £10/day for the congestion charge on top of any other road costs.

May I question the actual merit of making more effecient use of trains, as suggested earlier?

This might be true in that less trains are running empty, but the main reason behind the S stocks seating pattern was that services are too crowded, and the only way to increase capacity is to increase standing space, before the signalling changes restore the seats-per-hour of the A stock. That was a major point made during the period where it was sold to the Mets customers. If trains from Amersham use the slow, by the time they get to Moor Park/Northwood they surely will have more people on them than an ex-Watford might. That seems counter-intuitive, as it'll unnecessarily give the impression that trains are indeed busier, when actually it'll be because they would have served more stops.

I can quite forsee though that the arguement will be used that the seating layout of the S stock is a necessity because of the loadings in Central London primarily. Central loadings are higher, and the trains have to be capable and safe in that more demanding environment first and foremost. If thats the case, then it follows that different sections of line are indeed different in character; the S stock being Central area capable but having a modicum of a nod to the Suburban travelor. A compromise, as has been claimed before.

Now, it follows if different sections of lines are indeed different (and for S stock to be a compromise there must be at least two disparate paradigms to resolve by deffinition) in requirements, then it cannot be argued or implied that the whole Met line is merely one of eleven tube lines, nothing more, and nothing special. As has been before on this forum (if only I were better at thread searching/remembering).

All other lines, bar the met, run end to end with no non-stopping now; even when such a facility would be of great use (Pic to Heathrow, Central to Epping). The Met does though, and its not just because of an historical quirk. The Mets requirements were, and are still, different to those of a lot of other lines. Its principal purpose is arguably to transport the workers of Buckinghamshire and North West suburbia into London and the City. In order to ensure it did this as best it could, it has always run fast trains and had built its infrastructure accordingly.

Indeed the 'new works' four tracking north of Harrow was not only persued to seperate GC mainline workings, but to maximise benefits for the commuter belt in the area by providing electrified fast tracks to run Amersham and Chesham services. This must have been considered pretty important even into the 60's, as despite the austerity after WW2 this scheme continued and included fast-slow links at Harrow, and 4 rails up to Amersham and Chesham. It no doubt would have been far cheaper to dump everything north of Ricky and concentrate on the Mets existing line of electrification withdrawing LT services past it.

So the infrastructure is there to provide a service of good level to the outer area, the trains are a compromise between outer and inner, but the service is proposed to ignor any difference in character or requirements (except for frequency) off peak?

That doesn't sound very effecient atall...

If platform lengthening for Chiltern wont take place, and the timetabled speed and journey time remain lower than they were 50 years ago, even 20 years ago, then what legs does the company publicly have to stand on to shout the merits of the £x Billion investment programme, and that Londoners have never had it so good?

Why do people who make decisions assume that the people those decision affect wont know the history?

Sorry, this wasn't supposed to sound like a rant

And the December timetable fulfills this principle purpose

The peaks look non too different to todays peaks

mikeyr1234 I forgot to add to my last post that if you travel into London regularly you should get a Network Railcard, which would give you 1/3 off both Oyster and NR Off-peak fares. So a Off peak travelcard from Beaconsfield will be £12 instead of £18.



True, it should cost about £15 fuel for a return journey plus congestion and parking charges is quite expensive when compared to the Met. But there is the perception that the car is cheaper than the train, and for some the 'extra comfort' of the car will be worth the cost.

@metcontrol
Is this timetable a sort of trial for the major timetable change planned for December 2012? I know that Chiltern and LUL were in negotiations about the Dec 2012 timetable, to allow improved speeds and services to Aylesbury. Is the thinking that by diverting the Amersham/Chesham services onto the slow lines, you free up the fasts for Chiltern services? The problem is now that when Metronet replaced the Watford South junction in '07, they replaced the crossover rated at 40mph(?) for local Amershams with one I think only allows 20mph for local Amershams.

I don't believe there is a 'major' timetable change planned for Dec 12.
It is more likely to be similar to the Dec 11 timetable with a couple of running time revisions, but at the moment it doesn't look like these will be particularly significant