Timetable Update

Just for the Record, there are no really fast Amersham/ Chesham NB trains in the evening. They stop at Wembey now, and you just can't get on them anymore. ( 1730 > 1900 ). I gave up a long time ago. i'd rather get on a Chiltern Service and sit in a waiting room in Little Chalfont.

The Chiltern always get's priority over the Chesham Fasts , even though this may change who knows? . There's nothing more frustrating then seeing 2 Chilterns, and an empty Amersham Train trundle through Little Chalfont delaying the Chesham Fast (ish) by 10mins .

Even the passengers on the Chiltern peaks can't get those either. Standing room only if your lucky.

Anyone know if LU managing director's computer is broken? He had a letter from my MP over two months ago about the unacceptable Met line timetable and still no reply, not even an acknowledgement, received. Think there are legal requirements to respond...

Hello,

I think that the current 'culture' of the Met is to bring it into line with the rest of tfl's tube system, namely intense scheduling. This has meant that the trains on the line are now serving all it's stations where possible and practical. Concentrate the level of service on the areas of greatest passenger demand and utilise the other less used sections purely for positioning trains.

With the future of the Watford Junction extension now at 99%, it is worth considering the possibility that the future for the Metropolitan Amersham service could be bleak. In the current off peak with Chesham services now having to run to London, and the level of frequency between Chalfont and Harrow at 6tph (Chilterns inc), it may make economic sense (in the long term after Watford Junction has been running for a period) to divert the all stations Amersham service to Watford Junction and leave Amersham at the mercy, nay consideration of Chiltern trains. In the peaks there would still be a requirement for a Met Amersham service one would hope.

Here's my take on the current Met WTT.

GOOD POINTS

1) Very frequent service to all points.
2) Train Operator change overs at Harrow. Trains can go 'around' delayed services using alternative platforms. This would not be possible at Wembley Park with the current scheduled all stations services.
3) Good layovers at Watford, Chesham & Amersham enabling service recovery.
4) Fast lines can be utilised for service recovery off peak.
5) 'S' stock more suitable than 'A' stock for Wembley Park to Aldgate, Special events traffic, and possibly the Uxbridge branch.


NOT SO GOOD POINTS

1) 'S' Stock not built for the 'old' met. Passengers standing for longish periods on peak fast trains is both a possible health and safety issue and unpopular.
2) Closure of Chalfont bay as a result of 'S' stock design. Chesham service now at mercy of operational problems on whole of Met/H&C/Circle.
3) Chesham/Amersham/Aylesbury services all have to run south of Chalfont creating too frequent a service for demand.
4) All stations service on whole line at all off peak times. This point exacerbated by the fact that the fast service from Amersham had for many years been standard, and expected to continue as such.
5) Overkill on train announcements affects the travelling experience. 'A' Stock was dependent on individual Train Operators. 'S' Stock automatic announcements not dependent on time of day/majority clientelle/relevance.
6) Layover constraints result in Train Cleaners not being able to achieve total train clean at Aldgate and Uxbridge .
7) Imminent closure of Watford Met station. New residences built near to the station will lose an important artery. Line under pressure to stable more trains at existing locations. Service recovery may be hindered at Watford Junction by interworking with Overground.
8) Full utilisation of all Uxbridge's Station platforms off peak. Limits recovery of service on this branch.
9) Only the Uxbridge - Aldgate service warrants such a frequent service. This greater frequency has lead to bunching coupled to the fact that the 'new' WTT has introduced more scheduled stand time (?) if not a slackening of the running time.
10) Delays often dealt with severely by removing chunks of the timetable rather than regulating intervals., presumably because of the intesity of the scheduled service. This often creates passenger journeys within the Met necessitating changes en route.
11) Failure to completely exploit the line infrastructure (fast lines). Inefficient timetable not in line with passenger demand. Highlighted by Chiltern 2 car units running full off peak and many empty mets on Watford/Amersham and Chesham services north of Harrow.
12) Trains terminating at Harrow SB at the end of the evening peak not assisted by station staff. T/OPs can take 5+ minutes to detrain passengers. This can cause delay to the SB service.

Some of the good points overlap with the bad points as you will have noted! And apologies for the tautology! Nothing like running a railway and trying to keeping everyone happy eh?
nv

Later this month there will be a minimum of 8 buses per hour between the Monday to Friday peaks so perfectly feasible if a deal was struck with both Arriva and Go Ahead.

Err, wouldn't help commuters working late or travelling early much would it? Anyway, if the infrastructure is sitting there, if you were LU why would you then pay extra for an externally provided bus service?

Remember the vast majority of railways are unprofitable. I'm pretty sure TfL get no subsidy for the Met in Buckinghamshire and are not accountable to the locals. Carting fresh air on 8 car trains on the Chesham Branch is likely to cost more money than employing those trains to Watford Junction. There is an adequate bus service between Amersham and Chesham, albeit finishing a bit early.

So why not shut the line? The private sector has already shown that a decent (for Bucks standards) bus service without subsidy is profitable so TfL wouldn't need to pay anything to the bus companies. Win for TfL as they've cut a loss making branch; win for bus companies as they get more custom; but a loss for Chesham residents but since TfL are unaccountable in Bucks, Chesham residents don't matter.



In regards to the all stations services, I'll quote the responses LU gave in the consultation about through Chesham services in 2009:

"Introduction of through journeys between Chesham and central London:

LU recognises that changing at Chalfont & Latimer can be frustrating and hopes the proposal will address this, consequently improving journey experience and cutting journey times for customers using Chesham and encouraging greater use of the Tube."

Later on it states:

"Research shows that one of the most important factors to customers is overall journey time. LU believes the proposals will achieve the best journey time for all customers across the two branches, including the Chiltern services."


Oops!

the problem with a national rail is the crippling fares.one thing i do miss from chesham is the tube,(and the countryside)traveling to work in chesham from aylesbury by rail would cost a whopping £91 for five days.its just not worth it.

looking back the previous old system appeared to work.however times have changed and the flexibility to use this has now gone.

Not radical enough!?

Why not transfer the whole of the Brum service to Paddington (journey times compared with Euston only about +15 after the next round of Evergreen, as fast, if electrified) and then use Chiltern to provide the local services beyond Rickmansworth? Frees up Euston and WC capacity, longer platforms than at Marylebone, solves Met problem etc etc...

GH

The New North Main Line is disappearing with HS2 so Paddington - Birmingham (and beyond) via the GW/GC would be no longer possible...