Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Sept 11, 2011 21:08:18 GMT
And thats the main point of contention; quite a few people would disagree.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Sept 11, 2011 21:21:10 GMT
Formerly being a Northwood resident I really can't see why any more than 6tph are actually required. To me this new timetable is just going back to the old style unrealiable time table the Met had at the end of 1990s!
I think there are a lot of 'green eyed monsters' out there who don't have a fast service......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 21:24:21 GMT
As a passenger on the " Top end of the Met " i can tell you a lot of people moved out to Amersham and Chesham based on the fact there was a Fast service into London. So lucky no.  Do all these people who moved to Amersham and Chesham start work in London after 10.00 ? Nice work if you can get it !!! We don't all have cushy 9-5 jobs, some of us work shifts! |
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Sept 11, 2011 21:24:44 GMT
So by that merit the Piccadilly Line should call at Ravenscourt Park, Stamford Brook, Turnham Green and Chiswick Park? The District Line (for the first three at least) provides a decent service as it is. It's quite a different scenario - not least to mention there isn't really the capacity to thrust the Piccadilly Line's full service down that way as well! Cooperman, you seem to have get again jumped my point. The top end of the Met is no more special than anywhere else on the line. Whining because you have a whole seven minutes slapped on your journey time to benefit people other than you? I might be coming across a bit grouchy but the whole attitude from the people in zones 8/9 seems to be sod everyone else, I want my fast trains! The changes are off-peak, like I also said in my post. They are improving peak journey times and capacity with the S stock, not that you'll see all of that until the resignalling is complete and in full service. Like I said before, there's a lot of fresh air carried on the Met in the off-peak. If you're in a rush to get somewhere, use Chiltern. Marylebone is a short couple of minutes walk away from Baker Street. I'm not Whining and there is no point in getting your Nappy in a twist. Just Stating a point old boy. As said before, get your self down to Harrow at Peak Times . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 21:24:51 GMT
And thats the main point of contention; quite a few people would disagree. The passenger capacity figures are higher though. From 7-9am from Turnham Green for example there are trains every 3-6 minutes. In the off-peak, every 2-6 minutes. Between 6 and 7am, there are 20 trains through. It is safe to assume there are roughly this number during the heat of the peak on this same stretch. Between 9 and 10am, there are 12 trains through. I base the off-peak capacity on this figure. This is towards Upminster, so london-bound. D stock can take 965 people per train. This is based on seated + maximum observed standing capacity. That is 19,300 people carried per hour possibly in the peak towards London. The journey time from here to Monument is 34 minutes, so not THAT short. Off-peak, and the platforms normally seem quite empty passing through these stretches, 11,580 people can potentially be carried. On the other hand, let's look at Northwood for an example. There is no true peak service from this station. Trains are every 6-10 minutes, so let's assume 8 minutes, as there are no reliable figures available. That's 7.5tph - a figure I can't work with, so let's call it 8, which it rather more likely is, if not a tad more. A stock can carry 1195 people using the same type of figures. This means 9,560 people can be carried SB even during the peak, and off-peak during the day. 2009 entry/exit for the year at Turnham Green was 5.584 million. Respectively, 1.934 million at Northwood. Does the service reflect this difference? Only just. But the peaks particularly need it more. Now let's look at Pinner, where the user group that complained got this change: The service available is exactly the same. Don't forget though, being further south, the trains are more heavily loaded as they arrive. 2009? 2.258 million. So higher than northwood, albeit by 300,000 people over the year. That's (working on a 24 hour day) 821 people a day more through the station. Does it warrant the extra service frequency? I'm not sure. However, I'm sure the people of Northwood, Northwood Hills, Pinner and North Harrow will appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Sept 12, 2011 0:07:57 GMT
So by that merit the Piccadilly Line should call at Ravenscourt Park, Stamford Brook, Turnham Green and Chiswick Park? The District Line (for the first three at least) provides a decent service as it is. It's quite a different scenario - not least to mention there isn't really the capacity to thrust the Piccadilly Line's full service down that way as well! Cooperman, you seem to have get again jumped my point. The top end of the Met is no more special than anywhere else on the line. Whining because you have a whole seven minutes slapped on your journey time to benefit people other than you? I might be coming across a bit grouchy but the whole attitude from the people in zones 8/9 seems to be sod everyone else, I want my fast trains! The changes are off-peak, like I also said in my post. They are improving peak journey times and capacity with the S stock, not that you'll see all of that until the resignalling is complete and in full service. Like I said before, there's a lot of fresh air carried on the Met in the off-peak. If you're in a rush to get somewhere, use Chiltern. Marylebone is a short couple of minutes walk away from Baker Street. Lets play out a scenario: The next train leaving Amersham is an all stations Met. It leaves with a handful of people, as everyone going to London is advised to wait for the quicker Chiltern arriving in 10mins times. This happens along the line so that when the Met leaves Ricky it is emptier than it would've been if it was a fast service. As it calls into the local stations south of Moor Park not many will get on as there is little demand for 8tph meaning the amount of fresh air transported is even greater than before. 10 minutes after the local Met has departed, a Chiltern to Marylebone arrives at Amersham. Some might be surprised that lunchtime services are well patronised by passengers from Aylesbury and Amersham. A 2 car lunchtime service from Aylesbury is about 60-70% full by the time it reaches Amersham. Due to the halving of Met services at Amersham previously and now no more fast Met services, everyone piles on to the Chiltern so it is now 85-90% full. The train fills up so as the train leaves Ricky there are people standing. Is this acceptable for an off-peak service? Many people on the North end are worried that this is just the first step. The off-peaks are being slowed, could it be the peaks in a few years time? It doesn't help that the timetable is being introduced when the S Stock, which is well suited for inner-surburban/city services, is being rolled out on what is mainly an outer surburban commuter line. I know that many will say that there is no plans to cut fast peak services, but it is obvious to see why people are worried. |
|
|
|
Post by delenn on Sept 12, 2011 10:06:08 GMT
I know it's another denial, but put it this way: The discussions for 2013s timetables are in full swing, and the plans do include the Chesham service. So until then at least, the Chesham branch remains very much open for business  Hi. Can someone please explain to me why timetables are decided on so far in advance, and then seemingly cast in concrete? Take the Dec 11 WTT. This may be a stunning success. However, if it is unable to be maintained, why can it not be changed after, say, 3 months? Why is the May 12 WTT not decided 3 months in advance, rather than over 12 months in advance. Many Thanks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 10:47:03 GMT
I used the Met line from Ruislip to London and back on Sunday, the day of the experimental new timetable.
On the way in to London, our train arrived at Harrow at about the same time as a train on the other branch (from Watford, I think). So we had to wait for several minutes before we could follow it along the slow line. Seems to me that if all the Watford/Amersham and Chesham trains ran non-stop from HoH to Wembley Park, then (a) there could be a timed cross-platform inrchange at HoH every 7-8 minutes, and (b) there would be less congestion and less chance of delays.
OK, so Northwick Park and Preston Road would only have a 7-8 minute service during the day, but that would be no different from Pinner, Northwood, and also Ruislip and Uxbridge, at least as far as the Met Line is concerned.
Also, please decide whether trains on the Uxbridge branch or on the Watford/Chesham/Amersham branch are to run through to Aldgate. It's simple at the moment, at least off-peak. Why confuse it with some from each branch running through, and some stopping at Baker Street.
Robust? I don't think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 10:52:02 GMT
The Met is lucky to get a fast service at all... ...The top end of the Met isn't special. Use Chiltern if you want the speed in - the fares are the ruddy same! 'Lucky' - that's an interesting attitude. And 'special' isn't the issue. OK, so other LU lines don't offer a mixed fast/slow service pattern. But then they don't have millions of pounds of infrastructure set up to provide one, whereas the Met line does. How utterly wasteful is this when LU could (and does) provide a fast service which is what its customers want. Common sense dictates that people want to travel faster rather than slower. Isn't one of LU's objectives to promote public transport use? This entire proposal smacks of someone having an axe to grind and the lack of communication surrounding it displays an arrogance and contempt for service users that is more normally associated with regional bus companies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 11:09:45 GMT
I don't get why it's "such an outrage" and "commuters will use the Met less" as it doesn't ruddy affect the peak-time services! Because working life being the way it is these days, most commuters don't always travel home at set times. I often have to staty late, come home at odd times, travel in at weekends for work and leisure. People's lives are not as rigid as daily passenger flows might indicate and, if I've stayed late to complete work, I do not want to travel home on an extremely tedious all stations service. Comments about it being 'only seven minutes' ignore the fact that this is already by far the slowest service to London in South Bucks/Herts. Why should Chesham and Amersham customers willingly thank LU for making their journeys even slower? There is already anger in the Chilterns about railways because of HS2 (something which I support, incidentally) and this sort of behaviour by LU management displays exactly the kind of arrogance that makes people utterly furious. Twisted logic is being used to justify an utterly unjust decisions which is in the interests of a very few. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 11:09:58 GMT
'Lucky' - that's an interesting attitude. And 'special' isn't the issue. OK, so other LU lines don't offer a mixed fast/slow service pattern. But then they don't have millions of pounds of infrastructure set up to provide one, whereas the Met line does. How utterly wasteful is this when LU could (and does) provide a fast service which is what its customers want. Common sense dictates that people want to travel faster rather than slower. Isn't one of LU's objectives to promote public transport use? This entire proposal smacks of someone having an axe to grind and the lack of communication surrounding it displays an arrogance and contempt for service users that is more normally associated with regional bus companies. Well said that man! |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 12, 2011 11:29:58 GMT
I don't get why it's "such an outrage" and "commuters will use the Met less" as it doesn't ruddy affect the peak-time services! Because working life being the way it is these days, most commuters don't always travel home at set times. I often have to staty late, come home at odd times, travel in at weekends for work and leisure. People's lives are not as rigid as daily passenger flows might indicate and, if I've stayed late to complete work, I do not want to travel home on an extremely tedious all stations service. But that is the same situation that non-peak commuters 'suffer' on other lines. If I travel home during the peak (and most of a weekday), to Harrow & Wealdstone, it takes 12 minutes on London Midland. If I travel at the wrong time at a weekend or late evening, then the quickest train is the 30 minutes which it takes London Overground to make the same journey. And it is also the cheapest service to London. Would South Bucks / Herts passengers be willing to pay more for their off-peak journeys in order to retain the fasts? Out of London services have often suffered at LU's hands. Maybe things would be different if the councils in zones 7-9 were more proactive in specifying the service. Hertfordshire certainly gets involved on their National Rail routes, including sponsoring the Community Rail Partnership on the St. Albans' branch and the running of this service on Sundays. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 12, 2011 12:47:32 GMT
Isn't that almost blackmail?
Metrailway, you made an interesting point about the 2car Chilterns being crowded. Chiltern is required to keep crowding to a specified level as part of their franchise agreement. Does this apply on the Met/GC line? If so this could suggest that TfL is attempting to push any problem onto Chiltern for it to solve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 13:37:37 GMT
Speeds on the met are not really an issue. S stock are now achieving faster station to station times than thr fastest recorded A stock timed, despite being in a de-rated power mode and limited to 50 (55-56) mph. Once the lines go ATO and full power, the service could be much faster, which may offset the off peak pattern with the extra stops. Let's face it, neither the current LU or Chiltern timetables are taxing for the rolling stock/ drivers. On amother note, It seems to make sense to use the local line more intensively if the passenger demand is there, and if that is the case I would prefer to see Network Rail take over the fast lines North of HOH and fettle the line for Chiltern to run a faster service. It would make sense for LU to run fast services to Amersham / Chesham in the peaks, but only Watford in the off-peak. Without a flyover / diveunder, the crossing from local to fast lines at Watford South Jn causes parking constraints on the fast lines. This isn't an issue for the two Chiltern paths each hour that would be the only trains that use the fast between HOH and Watford South off-peak, but it raises the question about whether it is worth the cost of maintaining the fast lines for only a pair of off peak chiltern trains in each direction each hour? Same question for the fast lines between Wembley Park and HOH which will see no traffic off peak. It is true that most off peak trains North of Moor Park seem rather empty, a view exacerbated by the S stock where you can see down the whole length of the train!
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Sept 12, 2011 13:38:16 GMT
Metrailway, you made an interesting point about the 2car Chilterns being crowded. Chiltern is required to keep crowding to a specified level as part of their franchise agreement. Does this apply on the Met/GC line? If so this could suggest that TfL is attempting to push any problem onto Chiltern for it to solve. Yes Ben, Chiltern are required to use 'reasonable endeavors' to prevent 'excessive overcrowding' on all the trains it runs. The franchise agreement doesn't state how DfT measures this. The problem is for Chiltern is that they are short on stock, due to Evergreen 3 demand so any extra cars on off-peak services is very hard to achieve. If Chiltern order extra 172s from Derby they can't be run on the Met as they can't be fitted with tripcocks. The franchise states that Chiltern is not permitted to change its own timetable which would cause existing Chiltern passengers to use the Met. However, as the Met is not accountable to DfT, there is no agreement to prevent the Met changing it's timetable to force existing Met passengers on Chiltern services. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 16:04:41 GMT
Lets play out a scenario: The next train leaving Amersham is an all stations Met. It leaves with a handful of people, as everyone going to London is advised to wait for the quicker Chiltern arriving in 10mins times. This happens along the line so that when the Met leaves Ricky it is emptier than it would've been if it was a fast service. As it calls into the local stations south of Moor Park not many will get on as there is little demand for 8tph meaning the amount of fresh air transported is even greater than before. 10 minutes after the local Met has departed, a Chiltern to Marylebone arrives at Amersham. Some might be surprised that lunchtime services are well patronised by passengers from Aylesbury and Amersham. A 2 car lunchtime service from Aylesbury is about 60-70% full by the time it reaches Amersham. Due to the halving of Met services at Amersham previously and now no more fast Met services, everyone piles on to the Chiltern so it is now 85-90% full. The train fills up so as the train leaves Ricky there are people standing. Is this acceptable for an off-peak service? And then the regulars will learn very quickly that it's worth the extra 7 minutes. For less crowding, and not having to change for the Bakerloo at Marylebone just to get to Baker Street (for usual onwards connections!) People do have some intelligence, believe it or not ;D though it will be interesting to see the results. I do not believe it will end up with more fresh air being carried. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2011 16:17:25 GMT
Lets play out a scenario: The next train leaving Amersham is an all stations Met. It leaves with a handful of people, as everyone going to London is advised to wait for the quicker Chiltern arriving in 10mins times. This happens along the line so that when the Met leaves Ricky it is emptier than it would've been if it was a fast service. As it calls into the local stations south of Moor Park not many will get on as there is little demand for 8tph meaning the amount of fresh air transported is even greater than before. 10 minutes after the local Met has departed, a Chiltern to Marylebone arrives at Amersham. Some might be surprised that lunchtime services are well patronised by passengers from Aylesbury and Amersham. A 2 car lunchtime service from Aylesbury is about 60-70% full by the time it reaches Amersham. Due to the halving of Met services at Amersham previously and now no more fast Met services, everyone piles on to the Chiltern so it is now 85-90% full. The train fills up so as the train leaves Ricky there are people standing. Is this acceptable for an off-peak service? Many people on the North end are worried that this is just the first step. The off-peaks are being slowed, could it be the peaks in a few years time? It doesn't help that the timetable is being introduced when the S Stock, which is well suited for inner-surburban/city services, is being rolled out on what is mainly an outer surburban commuter line. I know that many will say that there is no plans to cut fast peak services, but it is obvious to see why people are worried. This thread is moving very fast with lots of comments, but if I could just follow this aspect up. Let me follow this up with the current "lunchtime" services and compare them to the "new" lunchtime services. We'll compare Marylebone with Baker Street. Current Timetable: Met departs Amersham 1246 - arrives Baker Street 1333 - total time 47 minutes. Chiltern departs Amersham 1256 - arrives Marylebone 1333 - total 37 minutes. New Timetable: Met departs Amersham 1247 - arrives Baker Street 1337 - total 50 minutes. Chiltern departs Amersham 1256 - arrives Marylebone 1333 - total 37 minutes. The new timings will be 3 minutes slower than now. Apart from the psychological feeling that it's much quicker by Chiltern (which it is without waiting the extra 10 minutes at Amersham) the journey time by Met is just 180 seconds longer than it is now. I think life has become far to pressured to be worrying about 3 minutes. Let's say you had a job in Baker Street, you would waste that time walking from Marylebone. Chiltern will always be faster, simply because for a long time now they have run faster trains, and don't stop at all of our stations. |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Sept 12, 2011 17:03:09 GMT
for leisure purposes they already have.travel cards have doubled.a single anytime cash fare from rickmansworth to harrow is £4 and the same from amersham its only when the oyster option is taken is this reduced.at the cash fare its nearing chilterns equivalent fares north of amersham and in some cases exceeding it.
also greater london users have the option of the bus for local journeys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 17:13:03 GMT
for leisure purposes they already have.travel cards have doubled.a single anytime cash fare from rickmansworth to harrow is £4 and the same from amersham its only when the oyster option is taken is this reduced.at the cash fare its nearing chilterns equivalent fares north of amersham and in some cases exceeding it. also greater london users have the option of the bus for local journeys. Travelcards have gone up significantly elsewhere too. They haven't doubled - only the 2-9 card is gone now. As for the single cash fare - your choice. Oyster only overcharges if you don't use it properly, and significantly speeds boarding on buses, and is quicker through ticket gates at stations. The tickets are also reusable and the negligible cost of ticket stock (for the value of a ticket) is also negated. There damn well should be financial incentives to use oyster as opposed to paper tickets - and there are! |
|
|
|
Post by mcmaddog on Sept 12, 2011 17:30:51 GMT
Why don't they plain line Harrow North Jn and be done with it rather than these stealth changes. Having the Met line have every train stop at every station fits in perfectly with the rest of TfL.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2011 17:38:45 GMT
Because if Harrow North Junction was plain-lined, we wouldn't be able to efficiently operate the peak-hour service fast trains. Between roughly 0600-0930 and 1700-2000 the fast lines will be in use - with plenty of trains which do not stop at all stations, and carrying the majority of our customers in the manner to which they are accustomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Sept 12, 2011 21:53:40 GMT
now with the new timetable coming in december, watford south junction will be used much more intensively, this raises the question, i saw a video of the junction in 1992, it is different to todays one. this raises the question, when was the junction replaced and why was it replaced when the old one allowed trains to pass over it alot quicker?!
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2011 21:59:44 GMT
Someone else will come along and quote dates, but Watford South Junction was replaced a few years ago, not necessarily to increase speeds across the junction, but to improve reliability of the whole formation. This has overall been achieved.
The new timetable will, as a side benefit, reduce usage of the averagely less-reliable Harrow North Junction.
Harrow North Junction will, at some point, be replaced with a similar set of "more reliable" crossovers and positioned slightly further north than it is currently - and putting it more onto the straighter section following the curve it currently sits on.
The new timetable is not considered as "at risk" from Watford South Junction as much as it was "at risk" from Harrow North Junction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 22:05:42 GMT
Okay, if they have pruned the difference between fast and stopping services to just three minutes, then there is clear potential to run the fast services, even faster than they currently do now, so an opportunity is being missed here! If you took off a minute for every extra stop that the stopper serves over the fast, then you are at least 7 minutes to the good for seven extra stops, which means theoretically, you could run a fast in 43 minutes or better between Amersham and Baker Street! I'm sure it could even be quicker than that!! And once the S stock can be run in full power and at faster speeds, those times could improve even further still.
Going back to the forthcoming change it appears that the fast lines are only going to be used by Chiltern between HOH and Harrow N Jn during off-peaks?.
If LUL are intent on turning the metropolitan line into a metro style stopping service then I'd like like to see Chiltern enhanced to run a faster outer suburban style service with stops solely at HOH (for connections to from Uxbridge) and Amersham on the Met. In fact in pretty much in the same way that Met interacts with Jubilee!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 22:10:06 GMT
Someone else will come along and quote dates, but Watford South Junction was replaced a few years ago, not necessarily to increase speeds across the junction, but to improve reliability of the whole formation. This has overall been achieved. The new timetable will, as a side benefit, reduce usage of the averagely less-reliable Harrow North Junction. Harrow North Junction will, at some point, be replaced with a similar set of "more reliable" crossovers and positioned slightly further north than it is currently - and putting it more onto the straighter section following the curve it currently sits on. The new timetable is not considered as "at risk" from Watford South Junction as much as it was "at risk" from Harrow North Junction. I'm not sure what you mean by "at risk", but I ddin't think HArrow N was used by anything other than ECS movements, so probably only a limited risk to the TT. On another note the NB road into Rickmansworth is in terrible condition judging by the way the train lurches around as it approaches and enters the platform. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Sept 12, 2011 22:29:28 GMT
Harrow North Junction is used regularly! Outside the hot summers ;D many Amersham/Chesham fast trains leave platform 3 at Harrow and crossover onto the fast line. Southbound fast trains leave the fast line and crossover onto the local trains all the time.
Of course this will soon be reduced to peak hours only.
Perhaps the management will put in a dashed line like they used to on the maps to indicate 'peak hours only' ;D
|
|
cso
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by cso on Sept 12, 2011 22:33:51 GMT
Perhaps the management will put in a dashed line like they used to on the maps to indicate 'peak hours only' ;D Dashed lines now seem to indicate National Rail services.... |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2011 22:38:21 GMT
Okay, if they have pruned the difference between fast and stopping services to just three minutes, then there is clear potential to run the fast services, even faster than they currently do now, so an opportunity is being missed here! If you took off a minute for every extra stop that the stopper serves over the fast, then you are at least 7 minutes to the good for seven extra stops, which means theoretically, you could run a fast in 43 minutes or better between Amersham and Baker Street! I'm sure it could even be quicker than that!! And once the S stock can be run in full power and at faster speeds, those times could improve even further still. Going back to the forthcoming change it appears that the fast lines are only going to be used by Chiltern between HOH and Harrow N Jn during off-peaks?. You see, this is where the whingers in this thread fall down I'm afraid. Where this figure of an additional 7 minutes has come from I don't actually know. The average increase from, say Amersham to Baker Street is between 3 and 6 minutes. It is not a case of an extra minute per stop. Where things have changed, especially on former fast services, is that the recovery / stand time that used to be included at places like Harrow, has been utilised in the run time for the local line. So the overall time remains pretty much the same but all stations are catered for. Now don't go telling me Chiltern don't use recovery time. It hasn't always taken 14-17 minutes from Harrow to Marylebone  Yes we could run 43-45 minute Amersham services - and even quicker with S-stock and new signalling. But if just 1 thing went wrong, where do you suppose we'd recover? It's so easy to say "at the end of the line" but then you'd get even more Harrow complaints than we do already on here, about trains not connecting or trains being held outside whilst others pass. If LUL are intent on turning the metropolitan line into a metro style stopping service then I'd like like to see Chiltern enhanced to run a faster outer suburban style service with stops solely at HOH (for connections to from Uxbridge) and Amersham on the Met. In fact in pretty much in the same way that Met interacts with Jubilee! First off, I'm afraid a lot of people need reminding that we are a "metro" and we're not a main line service anymore. So serving all of our stations equally is the aim. People from Northwood Hills matter as much as those from Chesham, Amersham and Chalfont. Chiltern's future is pretty much up to them. Their peak service already omits many of our stations at the north end of the line, and getting them to stop additionally during times of trouble is not always easy. If they end up non-stopping everwhere except Amersham, then the only people they will affect is the Met Line customers who use them as an alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2011 22:45:18 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by "at risk", but I ddin't think HArrow N was used by anything other than ECS movements, so probably only a limited risk to the TT. On another note the NB road into Rickmansworth is in terrible condition judging by the way the train lurches around as it approaches and enters the platform. As metman points out, Harrow North Junction is used a great deal during the normal service day. The pointwork is overdue for replacement, but the project to replace it has a huge price-tag on it - given the plan of relocating of the junction itself. The junction is by no means a write-off, but it's functionality versus risk of failure is, shall we say, un-balanced towards failure - at all times of the year. Watford South Junction was replaced with much more modern kit that is, as a result, more reliable and able to take the strain of frequent services to/from both lines it serves. As for the approach to Rickmansworth: We have a regular track recording train operation over all stretches of line, and coupled with this we have a dedicated number of experienced train operators who drive the line on a daily basis. The Met has always had "areas of character" in terms of ride quality (Neasden southbound being one such special area  but rest assured that if one area or another starts to "over-act" its character, the train operators will inform us pretty quickly, and the area will be fully checked out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 23:02:21 GMT
Going back to timings, I'm looking at the Summer 1961 edition of the 'UndergrounD Guide'. On Sundays there was a half-hourly fast service between Amersham and Baker Street (all stations to Moor Park, then Harrow and Finchley Road). A 45 minute journey time Amersham to Baker Street; 47 minutes return.
(On weekdays the fast trains were to / from Aylesbury, with what look like loco changes at Rickmansworth for the Met. trains, as they got 4 minutes at that station. Presumably, on Sundays, electric trains operated through to Amersham, as there was an Amersham - Aylesbury shuttle).
The service also had to cope with trains running non-stop between Rayners Lane and Finchley Road in the am peak on M-F and in the reverse direction during the pm peak.
Presumably all of this was before the full combined fleet of A stock had been delivered - ? I'm wondering whether even faster Amersham line timings might be found a few years later - ? With slick working, Amersham fasts at 42 or 43 minutes - ?
|
|
but rest assured that if one area or another starts to "over-act" its character, the train operators will inform us pretty quickly, and the area will be fully checked out.
