Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 8:40:42 GMT
Its pretty obvious to me that the fast trains were seen as a problem for those who operate them. Especially from the late 90s onwards. There was always plenty of Beeching era sabotage going on with the fast trains between Harrow and Wembley. Countless times I'd board a fast southbound train only to be held behind a stopping train that had departed Harrow at the same time. It was almost as if they were trying to prove a point much like when they were fabricating passenger numbers in the Beeching era. A shame, as before the late 90s the Met Line was an excellent example of a proper railway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 8:44:32 GMT
Don't think it has been mentioned yet but from next week Chiltern trains will be running every half hour Marylebone to Aylesbury on Sunday afternoons and evenings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:22:16 GMT
Don't think it has been mentioned yet but from next week Chiltern trains will be running every half hour Marylebone to Aylesbury on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Yes, that's correct. They are essentially the extension of the current, and little used, amersham shuttles, with an extra return journey. This service is on trial at least till the December timetable change.
|
|
|
Post by knap on May 14, 2013 11:19:48 GMT
The extra trains Amersham / Aylesbury to Marylebone are welcome. I have to travel Sundays and the Chiltern service has been poor. The current service on Sundays appears to be well loaded, so it will be interesting to see if the extra trains are well used as well. It would be nice to have half hourly trains all day. O and while I am at it, a later departure from Aylesbury towards Amersham in the evenings. The latest seems to be 10:35 which is no good if you want to go to the new theatre in Aylesbury and don't drive! At least the slow Met trains run a later service into London than Chiltern.
The shared Chiltern / Met services out into Herts.and Bucks brings benefits, but also problems as the passenger from London has to decide which station to go for (Baker St. Or Marylebone) and can have a long wait if they just miss a train. If both companies don't see the line as a priority (which from the service provided it could be argued) then the passenger suffers. They appear to be getting a worse service now compared to other lines which have seen improvements.
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on May 14, 2013 15:51:55 GMT
I'm curious to know how the revenues from pax boarding at the outer LU stations are split. I would imagine the percentage using Chiltern from the outer stations is greater than before the new improved (!) slow Met timetable was introduced. Do Chiltern just have to carry more pax without compensation, or are the numbers of pax on Chiltern vs Met calculated somehow and the revenue divied up accordingly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 18:55:46 GMT
I'm curious to know how the revenues from pax boarding at the outer LU stations are split. I would imagine the percentage using Chiltern from the outer stations is greater than before the new improved (!) slow Met timetable was introduced. Do Chiltern just have to carry more pax without compensation, or are the numbers of pax on Chiltern vs Met calculated somehow and the revenue divied up accordingly? Chiltern used to get from London Underground an amount based on the fact that LUL was providing the bulk of the service and not on how many passengers were actually carried. We used to say that with that money we couldn't even pay for the fuel used, with the service mostly supported by those travelling to the NR stations through the higher fares they paid (in comparison to those charged by LUL). A few years back passenger counting devices were installed on some trains in order to prove to LUL that Chiltern was carrying more passengers in a attempt to redress the situation. Since them I believe things have changed but I can't say whether it has been for the better or not as I am not aware of how the new system works. Needless to say this way of splitting the revenue has been one of the obstacles which has been preventing an increase/improvement of frequencies (plus a few other obstacles as well).
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 14, 2013 20:30:35 GMT
Basically, the deal struck between BR and LT (which I suspect is still fossilised today because of the difficulty of unpicking old contracts) was that LT took 60% of Travelcard revenue in zones 1-3, and BR took 60% outside of that. Between the BR TOCs, the revenue was split based on periodic surveys; these surveys always have winners and losers - it's inevitably a zero sum game. ["Own" TOC revenue and "National Rail only" revenue are split on a different basis but I musn't digress off thread.] The consequence of this approach is that there is little incentive on individual operators to earn more money, as they can't in the short termn - they merely increase a pool in which they have a part share.
BTW, unamusingly, the Travelcard split was the basis of one of the very first privatisation frauds. The prospective LTS management buyout team had set up an operation called (would you believe?) "Lots of money for LTS" in which passengers buying, say, a Fenchurch-Romford season at Fenchurch, were sold one that was actually run through the books at Romford, thus giving LTS a bigger share. This came to light two days before LTS - the first privatisation - was due to be sold to its management. We at BR had a rather fraught weekend, with No 10 breathing down our necks to sort it out. The incumbent management was sacked - in tears - on the spot, and LTS went to the back of the queue while I filled vanloads (1x Transit and 1x 15 ton Luton) of ticket office data for ORR's bedtime reading. Happy days!
GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 7:29:53 GMT
Don't think it has been mentioned yet but from next week Chiltern trains will be running every half hour Marylebone to Aylesbury on Sunday afternoons and evenings. ...arriving at Chalfont just ahead of the ex-Chesham southbound and just behind the Met to Chesham northbound, making sure that Chesham passengers cannot connect to Chiltern and have a faster journey. Spectacularly inept that the two companies can't sort this out...apparently there is a possibility in 2018...
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on May 15, 2013 8:13:47 GMT
@ metliner
Possibly no longer inept but appearing to look deliberate.
I am beginning suspect one of them (TfL, LU or Chiltern) has a hidden agenda. I see no other logical explanation. I was trained to look for 'motives' in my past career, and with such a cynical eye on things, I will watch this situation as it develops as I feel sure it will.
I remember years ago when I saw similar suspect manoeuvres over the attempted closure by stealth of the Horsham-Dorking line. Deliberate (or impossible), bad connections with Arun Valley services at Horsham and one year, it was "inadvertently" left off the national rail map. I'm not saying that is the motive in this case, but I "sniff" something's going on in someone's mind, somewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 11:56:33 GMT
A couple of recent happenings which seem to have some parallels with the situation on the Met line beyond Moor Park: 1) TfL have been refused to take over Southeastern services into Kent. Objections were raised by the leader of Kent County Council on grounds that services would be unaccountable locally and would focus on provision within London. Those of us on the Met line who have list our fast off peak services and have trains with limited seating have some sympathy with that view. This is a shame because, handled properly, TfL taking over such services would make sense. However, until the accountability issue is sorted, this will be a no go. Which brings me onto... 2) London Travelwatch are now saying TfL must provide equal priority for all services where it operates outside the GLA. The link is here: www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news/2013/06/passenger_watchdog_calls_for_safeguards_for_all_rail_users_in_devolution_decisionI contacted LTW to ask if this would apply to Met line and they said yes. As I write, I'm sat here on a southbound train that has just crossed onto the slow lines at Watford South and is stuck owing to 'severe' signal problems at Harrow. I'm on my way to a meeting and will probably be late. The all stations service yet again proves to be completely inadequate for those of us travelling longer distances.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 19, 2013 19:11:16 GMT
I'm afraid you're right. If your train was on time, you would be subjected to a 4/5 min wait at Harrow, whilst the previous train leaves as your doors open. The best you can hope for is a 10 min delay to your train which means it leaves Harrow asap and runs semi-fast to Finchley Road!
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jun 20, 2013 9:39:20 GMT
A couple of recent happenings which seem to have some parallels with the situation on the Met line beyond Moor Park: 1) TfL have been refused to take over Southeastern services into Kent. Objections were raised by the leader of Kent County Council on grounds that services would be unaccountable locally and would focus on provision within London. Those of us on the Met line who have list our fast off peak services and have trains with limited seating have some sympathy with that view. This is a shame because, handled properly, TfL taking over such services would make sense. However, until the accountability issue is sorted, this will be a no go. Which brings me onto... I have no evidence but I do have my suspicions that the situation on the Met would have played against TfL. I know that many Kentish commuters are aware of the problems the users in the country end of the Met have had, and I'm sure that quite a few would have written to their MPs stating their concerns about TfL taking over services into Kent. Of course David Gauke, MP for South West Hertfordshire, is a Government minister, so I'm sure the Government would have been aware of the problems commuters outside London have had with TfL...
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Jun 25, 2013 8:51:27 GMT
The New T/T as from 19/05/2013 shows evidence that some common sense has prevailed . From 0600 to 0930 N/B from Baker ST they have indeed swapped the Amersham Service with the Chesham Service with in that Window.Further more the majority of Chesham Trains from there are Semi Fast at that time. God news for me, being a Night Shift worker, not so good for me as TFL have taken over the Carpark . For years it has always been free from 1830 to 0700. It costs just £1.20p (because i leave at 1800 to catch the Train ) , as from the beginning of last week its £7 for over night parking.Oh well can't have it all your own way.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 1, 2013 6:58:45 GMT
Saw an item about Chesham car park in the local paper. Apparently it's been run by Chiltern District Council on behalf of LUL since 1989. Now NCP has been brought in as operator, and everyone with an annual ticket has to reapply for a new ticket and put in a claim to the council for the value remaining on the existing one.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 1, 2013 15:27:40 GMT
Under CDC you could park at their normal short stay prices. Now, judging by a letter in the local paper there is only a daily rate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 16:47:32 GMT
Under CDC you could park at their normal short stay prices. Now, judging by a letter in the local paper there is only a daily rate. Yes, that sums it up. Another one size fits all policy that its appropriate further out of town. Town centre parking is now a squeeze while empty spaces are in the car park owing to minimum charge of £3.50. I've no objection to LU running the car park via NCP but put in a sensible graded parking cost...LU would make more from it anyway. Presumably LU have now worked out that with the all stations off peak service, no one can do anything involving the train without it taking a whole day!
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Jul 17, 2013 16:15:12 GMT
Though as its the station car park why should it provide short stay parking? CDC has 2 town centre short stay parks anyway. At least it is cheaper than Amersham or Chalfont and Latimer station car parks run by NCP
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 17, 2013 18:42:08 GMT
Though as its the station car park why should it provide short stay parking? For the same reason airports have short stay car parks: To provide for meeters and greeters.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 19, 2013 19:51:00 GMT
Why indeed? Except that for as long as I have lived near Chesham it has just been another town centre car park not a dedicated station car park. I wasn't even aware that LUL still owned it until the recent change.
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Jul 20, 2013 16:01:38 GMT
Why indeed? Except that for as long as I have lived near Chesham it has just been another town centre car park not a dedicated station car park. I wasn't even aware that LUL still owned it until the recent change. Well i don't know how long you have lived near Chesham, but its always been referred to as the Station Car park. The clue is in its location.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 20, 2013 20:11:51 GMT
Location - yes Function - no
The clue was the use of Chiltern District Council standard car park signage.
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Jul 21, 2013 2:34:56 GMT
Location - yes Function - no The clue was the use of Chiltern District Council standard car park signage. LOL Which Carpark do you think people would use if they wanted to meet people from Chesham Station.? Err... let me think ..Hmm...the one next to the Station possibly ?. Which by the way, does say Chesham Station Car Park. Its irrelevant whether it had CDC signage . It was run by CDC as a Car Park who the majority used to park in, and then catch the train.
Location Yes Function Yes
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 21, 2013 10:14:28 GMT
Location - yes Function - no The clue was the use of Chiltern District Council standard car park signage. LOL Which Carpark do you think people would use if they wanted to meet people from Chesham Station.? Err... let me think ..Hmm...the one next to the Station possibly ?. Which by the way, does say Chesham Station Car Park. Its irrelevant whether it had CDC signage . It was run by CDC as a Car Park who the majority used to park in, and then catch the train.
Location Yes Function Yes That may be a trainspotter's view but to a "normal" if it has local council signs and local council shoppers car park prices then its a local council shoppers car park with some of those funny trains that their dads used to use to go to the City nearby. Incidentally most meeting and greeting traffic uses the station forecourt or the parking spaces in Station Road. I suspect that a lot of commuters will decide that the extra £10 for a season ticket in the council car park at Amersham is worth it for the extra trains.
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on Jul 22, 2013 9:34:11 GMT
LOL Which Carpark do you think people would use if they wanted to meet people from Chesham Station.? Err... let me think ..Hmm...the one next to the Station possibly ?. Which by the way, does say Chesham Station Car Park. Its irrelevant whether it had CDC signage . It was run by CDC as a Car Park who the majority used to park in, and then catch the train.
Location Yes Function Yes That may be a trainspotter's view but to a "normal" if it has local council signs and local council shoppers car park prices then its a local council shoppers car park with some of those funny trains that their dads used to use to go to the City nearby. Incidentally most meeting and greeting traffic uses the station forecourt or the parking spaces in Station Road. I suspect that a lot of commuters will decide that the extra £10 for a season ticket in the council car park at Amersham is worth it for the extra trains. LOL lets just Agree to Disagree.I think your Mindset is set on TFL's logic to this problem.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 25, 2013 20:51:00 GMT
LOL lets just Agree to Disagree.I think your Mindset is set on TFL's logic to this problem. If only all the other arguments on the Forum were settled like this. Thank you both!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 25, 2013 21:36:02 GMT
Yes if we all shared the same views the world would be a boring place!
It is interesting to see all the 60mph signs up. I've not noted it is quicker yet though!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 15:24:13 GMT
Yes if we all shared the same views the world would be a boring place! It is interesting to see all the 60mph signs up. I've not noted it is quicker yet though!! 60mph!!!! My goodness. Might have to bring a crash helmet. Never been that fast in a good old A stock
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Aug 3, 2013 0:04:18 GMT
Indeed!
|
|
|
Post by manorborn on Aug 3, 2013 13:37:01 GMT
60mph!!!! My goodness. Might have to bring a crash helmet. Never been that fast in a good old A stock When I was commuting daily in the 1970s, some trains used to hurtle between Neasden and Wembley Park, swaying so hard things would fall off one's lap. Once or twice I was genuinely concerned that the train might derail. I guess they were going at the max of the speed limit or maybe a little over. Pleased to say that nothing ever went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 3, 2013 16:08:55 GMT
Where are these new 60mph limits? I've only been using the Met south of Finchley Road in recent months.
|
|