News Article

As expected, really. Annoying to already see the trolls in the comments section bemoaning the CRL and it's extra 10 minute walk for a couple of hundred passengers at most.

They should be happy that they have the Met; they're not in Greater London.

Although it is annoying for some...

Have to agree with the comments aswell. The railways aren't run for opperational convenience, they're run for the service of the traveling publics desires. If this can be achieved and opperations simplified then great, but in this case it can't and it isn't.

How far we are from the principals which made the Underground envied by the world.

Until December comes, we have run a split-class line. Why is it that Amersham and Chesham customers feel they should be kept on fast trains, and should be allowed to wave a snooty hand at the residents of Northwood or Pinner as they pass by. And all for the sake of how many minutes?

I didn't read all the comments, but surely Mrs Metcalfe who is quoted grew up in a time when hustle and bustle were much less the norm. I daresay she has broadband which she considers too slow, and a mobile phone which has patchy reception in some areas.

I've said it so many times on here, but I'll say it again. The changes in December have mostly come about through the pressure applied by certain rail user groups - just as the Chesham shuttle was scrapped for the same reasons. Rail users in the areas who campaigned were fully consulted - and indeed have continued to be consulted even recently, about further tweaks in 2013.

Operational reasons do not really enter into it. There is a slight running time increase due to the extra stops, but as has been pointed out, more trains will continue into the city - removing the need to change at Baker Street. So the 5 or 6 minutes lost by stopping everywhere, is regained by not needing to climb the stairs at Baker Street- something hopefully our older customers - including Mrs Metcalfe - will appreciate.

A few minutes out in the open - especially with Winter fast approaching. On top of that, with the current off-peak service, you are limited to a 10-minute service allowing you to stay seated until Finchley Road.



People do share your fears - especially some of us in the control room. However, evidence that I have worked through recently has lead me to believe the new timetable will be more "New Circle" than a disaster.

...because they're further away, so the journey times even out?

i would call it a downgrading of service,not so long ago i would get off the shuttle at chalfont and hope the next train would not be a chiltern now the opposite would be true,its unfair to say wave a snooty hand its the distance from london that is the overriding factor hence the need in speed.why should chiltern take priority on lu track as mentioned in other threads they were going to shut marylebone in the 1980's now its given priority.

ts a fact although it does depend on area to a degree that the further you live away from the capital the cheaper the house price so someone boarding a aylesbury vale parkway, the commuter will have paid less then wendover or amersham so the pinner resident could be said to wave the snooty hand.again it depends if you commute to london.

the fact it is a bad service for the bucks user,paying more getting an unsuitable train a cut in speed and additional unnecessary stops that will only benefit someone who travels from amersham to one of these additional stops' or the other way,and a chesham through service at times liable to disruption. but for the majority its a downgrade nothing else.

If it's a metro service, Metcontrol, then I suggest you do something about the fact there are only two trains an hour (not a metro frequency) by doubling the line to Chesham and running more trains. Until that day, (which will never come) the Metropolitan Line isn't a metro service.

Making the Metropolitan Line a metro service is like me coming along and trying to turn a posh restaurant into a fast food joint. It's a recipe for disaster and it's only going to drive people away to other restaurants.

This change will impact on me. Yes, I am selfish, but I want a decent train service like everyone else, so have complained to TFL and my MP and have been fobbed off with spin. An extra 7 minutes (as quoted by TFL) is an extra 7 minutes on an already long journey. The benefit of not needing to change at Baker Street may help on occasions, but what percentage of passengers off peak actually want to go to and from the West End as opposed to the City, particularly at week ends when The City is usually dead? The people traveling to the West End off peak will have longer journeys, they are being provided with a poorer service.

I suspect people will avoid using Met services off peak and go to Marylebone for the West end. This could mean fewer people using the Met trains, so will TFL then say there is less demand and cut the poor service back to one train an hour? The service will just then spiral further down hill. Grumpy mode off!

I no longer live in the area so l can speak dispassionately as an observer and former user.

One of the most important lessons I learned in my business career was that it is easier to argue "why not", (why things shouldn't be done), than to argue the reasons why they should. Those who argue for "why not" tend to be the most stubborn. It's called being in a "comfort zone" and feeling comfortable with the existing regime rather than become "exposed" via proposing or implementing a new "why" one

Also I learned that money is quicker spent unnecessarily (probably in case of a change of mind), than is spent on "necessary spends" > different sources of funding seem to be found. Linecontroller66 makes the point with his comment about the 'Fit for London' junket. Money should be spent on N Harrow junction as a priority and not on unnecessary spends.

I could write for hours on this, but I'm afraid I would upset some people. But I would say, If the Met can't or don't want to run a decent service to Watford, Amersham or Chesham, concentrate on Watford and give Ricky etc to Chiltern. If the Met think the Rick (& beyond) stub is an inconvenience, don't moan about it but get rid of it. Free up the infrastructure for Chiltern to run a more frequent (proper) "Metro" service. Let Chiltern run services to Croxley and Watford from Chesham off-peak via Ricky. (I can hear the "Why not" brigade fidgeting already).

Let the PAX of Amersham and district remember: "Be careful of what you pray for in case your prayers are answered"

The country ends of the Met (& Central) are a case in point. A rail service should be about what passengers want WITHIN REASON. Managers should therefore try and implement reasonable requests rather than look for immediate reasons "Why not". Give W. Ruislip to Chiltern's new "Metro service", all trains calling there & S Ruislip. From North Acton the Central was built as a duplicate line. S Ruislip to W Ruislip did NOT need duplicating. There was NO vision, and the Central should have run from Ruislip Gdns to Ickenham, Hillingdon & Uxb in 1948. PLEASE don't waste my time on telling me "why not". The Picc should have been curtailed at Rayners Lane off peak with peak hour terminators at Ruislip and not beyond. With money spent on a Park Royal interchange, and Centrals running to Uxb, Piccs wouldn't need to run to Uxb anyway.

These are a couple of examples of spending money to provide better service to passengers. THAT is what running a railway should be about. And things such as these should be prioritised before spending money on fixing things that "ain't broke". N Harrow junction is effectively broke, so it needs fixing and let's not hear reasons "Why not". New signage, new offices and new colour schemes are not always a priority, (at least, they shouldn't be).

TfL desperately needs people with vision as a concept rather than people who maintain that what was designed before 1939 is still best for London. It isn't.

Handing over Rickmansworth to Amersham to Chitern would be relatively straightforward,though Chiltern would surely seek to provide a reduced service compared to the Met.
The real losers would be Chesham services...Chiltern would resent being lumbered with these short-runnings and would do their utmost to mitigate their obligation to provide them.

The Met did operate as a main line railway, and even had ambitious plans for a network spanning from Manchester to continental Europe (never happened, [unfortunately?]), and still is somewhat.

Question: How many trains a day run on the National Rail line twixt W & S Ruislip - Paddington?

Secondary question: How many trains a day did that line take 60 years ago?

Is it beyond the ability of mankind for there ever to be 'joined up thinking' about national rail policy?

If (unlikely) Chiltern took over from Rickmansworth, I'm pretty certain you'd get the Chesham shuttle back, probably operated by a single unit "Bubblecar".