|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 12, 2012 11:47:14 GMT
Could someone tell me how, under the current timetable, I can plan my journey to use Chiltern services when I travel from Chesham? Has anyone here suggesting this actually looked at how Chiltern/Met services completely fail to connect at Chalfont in either direction? You hang around in the cold, for the privilege of spending less time in the train between Chalfont and London. Of course, off peak and before the timetable change, you would have been hanging around in the cold at Chalfont, whichever service you took to London. Chesham is one of the quietest stations on the network (see link below for the stats) with the only stations less busy being on the Hainault - Woodford line. So can a fast service, throughout the day, really be justified? www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/station-entry-and-exit-figures.xls |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 12, 2012 11:54:01 GMT
They're also significantly cheaper: You've used peak single fares. Since the subject is the Met Off-peak service I think it is only fair to use off peak day returns as a comparison.  | Origin | Destination | Service Type | Journey Time | Off Peak Return | % time difference* | % difference in price+ | | Chesham | Baker Street | Slow | 62 mins | £11.60 | + 59.0% | N/A | | Amersham | Baker Street | Slow | 55 mins | £11.60 | + 41.0% | N/A | | Amersham | Marylebone | Chiltern Fast | 39 mins | £11.60 | 0% | N/A | | Berkhamsted | Euston | Slow | 37 mins | £13.50 | - 5.1% | + 16.4% | | Berkhamsted | Euston | Fast | 31 mins | £13.50 | - 20.5% | + 16.4% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | Slow | 37 mins | £14.30 | - 5.1% | + 23.3% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | Fast | 25 mins | £14.30 | - 35.9% | + 23.3% |
* all times compared to the Chiltern service from Amersham + fares compared to fare from Amersham As we can see the Met is still cheaper but the price difference between the Met and its 'rival' railways is not stark. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2012 12:11:45 GMT
I wonder if the relatively low usage of Chesham might be related to the slow service. In the single year when there were fast, through trains, I believe usage rose by about 50%.
There is a lot of rail heading to Betkhamsted, Amersham and Chalfont. Seems odd that LU is encouraging car use.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 12, 2012 12:27:13 GMT
I know my table in my previous post may not have been clear so I've compared % difference in average times and % difference in fare price. | Origin | Destination | Avg Journey Time | Off Peak Return | % difference in Avg. time | % difference in price | | Amersham | Baker St/M'bone | 47 mins | £11.60 | 0% | 0% | | Berkhamsted | Euston | 34 mins | £13.50 | - 27.7% | + 16.4% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | 31.3 mins | £14.30 | - 33.4% | + 23.3% |
|
|
kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 686
|
Post by kabsonline on Dec 12, 2012 12:56:07 GMT
I wonder if the relatively low usage of Chesham might be related to the slow service. In the single year when there were fast, through trains, I believe usage rose by about 50%. There is a lot of rail heading to Betkhamsted, Amersham and Chalfont. Seems odd that LU is encouraging car use. Even if passenger numbers did double in that year, Chesham is still a relatively quiet station compared to others on the Underground. I live in Chesham and am grateful that the Underground still provides a service considering passenger numbers, the fact that it is so far from London and the fact that it is on a long single tracked branch line. There have been many rumours and ideas in the past to close the station and turn the track bed in to a road or turn it into a heritage railway. I think we are very lucky with the service we have!  |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 12, 2012 12:58:24 GMT
Would it be worth including rail miles to terminal and frequency of service in the tables?
Always a fan of tabular info! Thanks for taking the time metrailway.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 12, 2012 13:58:03 GMT
Would it be worth including rail miles to terminal and frequency of service in the tables? Always a fan of tabular info! Thanks for taking the time metrailway. No problem - Since you have requested mileage I've also included cost per mile. | Origin | Destination | Avg Time | Frequency | Mileage* | Off Peak Return | cost per mile | % diff. in Avg. time | % diff. in price | | Amersham | Baker St/M'bone | 47 mins | 4tph | 23 miles 54 chains+ | £11.60 | 25p | 0% | 0% | | Berkhamsted | Euston | 34 mins | 4tph | 27 miles 75 chains | £13.50 | 24p | - 27.7% | + 16.4% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | 31.3 mins | 3tph | 23 miles 23 chains | £14.30 | 31p | - 33.4% | + 23.3% |
* figures from mileage.railmiles.org/ + Average distance EDIT: corrected cost per mile |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2012 14:45:35 GMT
Surely the cost per mile for a RETURN journey should be half the fares quoted?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 12, 2012 16:10:08 GMT
Yes you are right. I have now corrected the mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Dec 12, 2012 17:02:27 GMT
Some good valid points .I think what TFL should be looking at , is the Peak Times of the Met Time Table. What ever people think, the Man/ Woman's working day in the City is a lot longer these days.
As for funneling every Train down the Local lines Off Peak , this simply just doesn't work when there is problem on the Line . This was quite evident last Night, when some Passengers gave up and got a Taxi from HTH to Chesham.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 12, 2012 19:19:07 GMT
I wonder if the relatively low usage of Chesham might be related to the slow service. In the single year when there were fast, through trains, I believe usage rose by about 50%. The numbers for the year before the linked file (which was 2011 data) were a fair bit lower for Chesham, whilst Amersham was very similar. See www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/passenger-numbers-at-underground-stations.pdf for the older data. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 12, 2012 19:28:50 GMT
They're also significantly cheaper: You've used peak single fares. Since the subject is the Met Off-peak service I think it is only fair to use off peak day returns as a comparison. As we can see the Met is still cheaper but the price difference between the Met and its 'rival' railways is not stark. One other consideration is that the Met fares are to any station in Zone 1, whilst the National Rail fares are only a return to the terminus. This makes the Met cheaper, unless the destination is within walking distance of the NR terminal station. An off-peak travelcard maybe a fairer comparison (for Berkhampsted this is £19.00) or add £4.00 to the National Rail return fare for an Oyster user (£2.00 each way off-peak zone 1 single). |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Dec 12, 2012 21:15:53 GMT
The Met is even cheaper with Oyster of course.
As a resident of a village just outside Chesham I drive to Chalfont if I need a train because:
1. I need to drive because the bus service is so infrequent and finishes at tea time.
2. Chalfont gives me 6tph rather than 2
3. The car park is cheaper than Amersham or Hemel
For an evening in London I would probably drive anyway as there is little difference travelling in and its a lot quicker at midnight.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Dec 12, 2012 22:23:43 GMT
They're also significantly cheaper: You've used peak single fares. Since the subject is the Met Off-peak service I think it is only fair to use off peak day returns as a comparison. | Origin | Destination | Service Type | Journey Time | Off Peak Return | % time difference* | % difference in price+ | | Chesham | Baker Street | Slow | 62 mins | £11.60 | + 59.0% | N/A | | Amersham | Baker Street | Slow | 55 mins | £11.60 | + 41.0% | N/A | | Amersham | Marylebone | Chiltern Fast | 39 mins | £11.60 | 0% | N/A | | Berkhamsted | Euston | Slow | 37 mins | £13.50 | - 5.1% | + 16.4% | | Berkhamsted | Euston | Fast | 31 mins | £13.50 | - 20.5% | + 16.4% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | Slow | 37 mins | £14.30 | - 5.1% | + 23.3% | | Beaconsfield | Marylebone | Fast | 25 mins | £14.30 | - 35.9% | + 23.3% |
* all times compared to the Chiltern service from Amersham + fares compared to fare from Amersham As we can see the Met is still cheaper but the price difference between the Met and its 'rival' railways is not stark. Ah, I'd forgotten about that - thanks! |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 12, 2012 23:21:23 GMT
My mate just text me to say he's furious that in the morning he only has 2 Aldgate trains from Croxley. I told him to write to his MP. He already has, and to Boris!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 18:01:50 GMT
My mate just text me to say he's furious that in the morning he only has 2 Aldgate trains from Croxley. I told him to write to his MP. He already has, and to Boris! Wonder how he'd feel about two tph all day every day! Of course the idea that only Amersham and Chesham passengers benefit from off peak fasts is a false argument. Passengers to all stations north of Harrow use them as evidenced by rush hour loadings. Passengers to Croxley and Watford would use them to Moor Park and change there. An earlier post made the sensible observation that people no longer work standard hours. On top of that, anyone with a pre-work appointment or who has a late meeting is condemned to an unacceptably slow journey. Passengers from Ricky to Chesham and Amersham do not demand special treatment: rather they demand equal treatment to those residing in the same region who live on parallel routes. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Dec 14, 2012 21:20:35 GMT
No we don't demand special treatment - we would just like the service we had before the December 2011 timetable change which was imposed without consultation
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 14, 2012 22:18:27 GMT
No we don't demand special treatment - we would just like the service we had before the December 2011 timetable change which was imposed without consultation In a parallel universe they are rebuilding London Bridge station. Much worse disruption will be caused over a number of years. Short term suffering is needed in both cases to provide long term improvements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 1:00:48 GMT
In a parallel universe they are rebuilding London Bridge station. Much worse disruption will be caused over a number of years. Short term suffering is needed in both cases to provide long term improvements. Yes, but that project has clearly defined outcomes and objectives. From the Met line, all we hear is 'more and faster trains' but without telling us what we might actually expect on each branch of the line; you could run 32tph to Uxbridge and say there's more trains while running nothing to anywhere else. And if the all stations off peak service is a case of short term pain for long term gain, why hasn't LU ever said that in any of its communications? It would stop an awful lot of angry letters to MPs and the Sec of State for Transport. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 4:30:40 GMT
It's TfLs big plan!
Getting NR and the SSL Signalling System to be compatible will be a nightmare, so they make the Met Services North of Ricky undesirable and start to encourage passengers to use Chiltern Instead. Chiltern Enhance their service with higher frequencies and longer trains, and before you know it you have S8s moving fresh air about North of Moor Park. TfL then see the under-use of the line as warranting closure, so they sever the fast lines and the mainline between Moor Park and Amersham/Chesham from the network, transfer the assets to NR and use the 'spare' S8s to enhance the much more heavily used Uxbridge and Watford Jn Services - the users of which don't give a monkeys whether the train is fast, semi-fast or all stations!
Why didn't TfL remove the bay road at Chalfont? It's conveniently long enough for a 2/3 car DMU to fit in to run the Chesham Shuttle!
And worst of all, I don't think it's a bad idea. The customers of Amersham, Chesham, Chalfont etc are - how should I put it - the kind of folk that want a premium service. They were never going to accept S8s with rubbish seating and all stations services - much as the punters from Aylesbury wouldn't have been caught dead on an A60/A62 50 years ago.
I may just be cynical, I may be completely wrong, but regardless it's actually the best way forward from here in my humble opinion. The days of 95mph A Stocks Hurtling down the Hill on Off Peak Fasts with 4 passengers on board are over. They are not coming back. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 15, 2012 7:32:30 GMT
No we don't demand special treatment - we would just like the service we had before the December 2011 timetable change which was imposed without consultation Possibly passengers on the District at Upminster, Barking, West Ham and Whitechapel trying to get to Wimbledon (off-peak) feel the same ? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 15, 2012 7:57:07 GMT
Perhaps. However, I feel it is a journey that isn't commonly done! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 15, 2012 9:32:16 GMT
Perhaps. However, I feel (Upminster/Barking/West Ham to Wimbledon) is a journey that isn't commonly done! ;D And anyone who does would probably use C2C to West Ham, and Jubilee to Waterloo (or, from Whitechapel, via ELL to Clapham Junction) |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 15, 2012 9:46:16 GMT
Chiltern has provided the faster option for years.
Additional trains will not be available to them to take over the service provided by the Met.
Once the track and signalling upgrades are complete faster trips will be possible. The number of stops south of Harrow-on-the-Hill will be marginal if more frequent trains are running.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 12:23:38 GMT
I'm surprised no-one has pointed an obvious reason for not running fast services anymore.
The off-peak service previously had 4 trains an hour fast to Amersham/Chesham and 6 tph to Watford, calling at all stations between Harrow on the Hill and Moor Park. The new timetable has 4 tph all-stations to Amersham/Chesham and 4 tph all-stations to Watford. Making all the trains all-station addresses the requirement of providing a more frequent service to stations like Pinner, without a big increase in the number of trains on the Watford branch, which doesn't really need 8 tph. Unlike the Uxbridge branch, which at the same time benefitted from a slight increase in capacity from 6 tph to 8 tph.
So basically, it's a cheaper and more efficient way of dealing with the fact that Pinner didn't have a frequent enough rail service.
And Chesham and Amersham still have fast trains in the peaks, so at the time when the assets are required the most, they are used, but when they are not really needed, they are not unnecessarily wasted carrying very few passengers. In addition, the all-stations service has many benefits for local journeys from any station to any other station without changing, something that many people find very useful I'm sure.
Finally, I have noticed that there are engineering works on the met line, I can see them working on the line between Harrow on the Hill and North Harrow from West Harrow. Not sure exactly what they are doing, but there is definitely engineering work going on. I'm not sure why it's visible from West Harrow, and apparently not visible from the trains passing through the area!
Well, there's my two-pence worth.
Cheers,
TSM
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 16, 2012 11:59:37 GMT
The works adjacent to Harrow North Junction are embankment works (I think). The Watford branch certainly did not need 8tph, 6tph is adequate off peak. The Uxbridge line certainly did need the extra capacity which it now has.
Perhaps Chiltern should buy/lease the First Great Western 165s and 166s when the electrification scheme is complete. I'd rather they networkers went to Chiltern rather than the South West!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2012 13:24:16 GMT
The Watford branch certainly did not need 8tph, 6tph is adequate off peak. The Uxbridge line certainly did need the extra capacity which it now has. On a personal note, I find it amazing that when I used the Uxbridge line regularly (off-peak MF) in the 1970s a 4-car train every 15 mins was more than adequate, with plenty of seats always available. Another point is that there were then no Piccadilly trains MF midday off-peak either! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2012 14:16:05 GMT
How about replacing Met with Jubilee on slow tracks to HoH (not exactly new, I know), giving all Met users Harrow northwards at least a semi fast at all times, and further standardising the Met service. Preston Road & Northwick Park would get 10 tph off-peak, 15 peak; quite a bit slower but direct to the West End. A trade-off between a lot of benefits for 20 stations plus TfL, versus some upset customers from 2, who would get the same service as Kingsbury & Queensbury.
A single siding at Harrow reversing 15 tph would be challenging, but not impossible; same as Brixton.
Then when resignalling is complete, timings would be same as or better than the erstwhile off peak fasts. Lots of happy bunnies. A handful of grumps.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 16, 2012 14:31:25 GMT
I don't really think there are enough 96 stock trains to do this and I don't think the siding would cope. There is also the issue of splitting the Jubilee service. No, I think we have to work with what we have.
Reg, that just shows how times have changed I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Dec 16, 2012 17:05:58 GMT
No we don't demand special treatment - we would just like the service we had before the December 2011 timetable change which was imposed without consultation In a parallel universe they are rebuilding London Bridge station. Much worse disruption will be caused over a number of years. Short term suffering is needed in both cases to provide long term improvements. It is really simple. No one has explained what the improvements are, when they will be completed and why they are needed. If Tfl would communicate there might be a lot less fuss and no conspiracy theories. |
|
