|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 28, 2017 6:33:31 GMT
Not a good start:
No service on the local line between Northwood and Wembley Park and no service Rayners Lane to Wembley Park with SEVERE DELAYS on the rest of the line while we fix a fault with the track at Harrow-on-the-Hill There is no service between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Wembley Park, your tickets will be accepted on the local buses and Chiltern Railways train services.
|
|
|
|
Post by edb on Sept 28, 2017 6:39:54 GMT
No, not a great start. Especially for those waiting at Chesham station where the poor staff member on duty had to apologise because the Chesham train due in was routed to Amersham instead, cue much muttering and frustration.
This is not the first time this has happened and the cynic in me does wonder if it's better to run a better Amersham service (even though there is also the Chiltern from there) than it is to run a good Chesham service (generally due to the fact TFL seem to find this little branch a pain in the behind).
WHilst this is a moaning post I would like to praise the Staff Member on duty who was very visible, very approachable and very open with communications.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 28, 2017 6:58:55 GMT
No, not a great start. Especially for those waiting at Chesham station where the poor staff member on duty had to apologise because the Chesham train due in was routed to Amersham instead, cue much muttering and frustration. This is not the first time this has happened and the cynic in me does wonder if it's better to run a better Amersham service (even though there is also the Chiltern from there) than it is to run a good Chesham service (generally due to the fact TFL seem to find this little branch a pain in the behind). WHilst this is a moaning post I would like to praise the Staff Member on duty who was very visible, very approachable and very open with communications. In many ways it was better in the days of the shuttle service. If the peak through trains were cancelled or diverted, it was possible to still run the shuttle to Chalfont. |
|
|
|
Post by edb on Sept 28, 2017 7:13:10 GMT
In many ways it was better in the days of the shuttle service. If the peak through trains were cancelled or diverted, it was possible to still run the shuttle to Chalfont. Indeed and at least this would get people to a station Chiltern service that could then transport you. Amersham already has a Chiltern service so in times of problems such as this there is another option. |
|
|
|
Post by metrider on Sept 28, 2017 7:14:33 GMT
Interesting - the @metline twitter feed mainly mentions a 'track fault' but one tweet mentions 'Late finish of planned works'.
What single track fault would lockout both local and fast lines (in a particular direction) through HoH? I'm assuming points could be secured etc on the otherwise unaffected route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 7:21:45 GMT
Defective switch rail on 205b Points
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Sept 28, 2017 7:34:49 GMT
205 is NB Uxbridge to NB Local from P4 at Harrow isn't it?
Also is it just coincidental that the suspension covers the entirety of tracks within the control of Harrow (JB)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 15:18:19 GMT
It was the points that crosses over from the SB Uxbridge line onto P6 that were stuck in reverse due to the reason DistrictSOM mentioned
|
|
|
|
Post by marri260 on Sept 28, 2017 16:47:08 GMT
Yes, 206 points effected on the SB, stuck in the reverse as has been said, not 205 on the NB. Services still ran through on the main lines through platforms 1 & 2 as they were obviously unaffected by the failure. I haven't had the opportunity to see the full details yet as to what exactly went wrong, but understand a switch rail was being welded on 206 points which was not / could not be completed in time for the start of traffic. This I suppose quantifies as both a track fault and late finish of engineering work, hence the possible confusion as to the reasoning that was published.
The actual reasoning behind the suspension probably could have been communicated better though yes. I for one was advising customers that it was a 'signal failure at Harrow' (not really that inaccurate, and doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things) as that's what I assumed was being communicated on the service update etc based on the very little information I'd heard on the radio but I didn't even have a moment to check due to the sheer pandemonium really.
|
|
