Radical Rethink

Do Chiltern have the additional stock, drivers and other resources? What about additional stabling in London (yes I know about Wembley,but that pretty limited)?

The biggest problem with the Met Main is the inefficient, outmoded and obsolete Passenger Service Agreement that controls train services at the shared stations. Once Chiltern and TfL are able to amend the existing agreement or create a new one, I believe that the timetable will be appropriately recast to provide the services that people want.

The second biggest problem is the aging infrastructure. A down avoiding line at Chorleywood, a flying junction at Chalfont and the complete resignalling of the fast lines from Harrow North to Mantles Wood, with all new signalling, interlockings and layouts at Watford South, Rickmansworth, Chalfont and Amersham would go a long way to improving reliability and allowing for the train service to be appropriately modified.

OK so radicalism is required at the up end.

I think Chiltern – acknowledged as one of the best suppliers of rail services – deserves a City terminus in addition to Marylebone. This will be achieved by connecting with the Midland Mainline at West Hampstead as part of the proposed rebuild/interchange, or if that proves too difficult by a burrowing double connection to the Acton-Cricklewood (Dudding Hill) line at Neasdon. Transit via the Widened Lines would see the Buckinghamshire punters delivered to Moorgate without all that messing around at Harrow. Sorry about Aldgate but that’s a bit more expensive.

Have you not seen Network Rail's Cross-London RUS? It makes absolutely no mention of passenger services over Acton-Dudding Hill; in fact, no mention of even upgrading for freight. And this from NR's most strategic document, which looks ahead to 2020. BAA floated the idea of using this line for Heathrow stoppers to St Pancras back in the 1990s but that went precisely nowhere even though they seemed to be prepared to throw lots of private money at it. Sorry but in conclusion I see absolutely no chance of your idea happening.



At the risk of mixing my metaphors: sorry to pee on your chips but there's way too much pie-in-the-sky here. You and I will both be a long time dead before the Met ever again reaches Aylesbury as there's no way Chiltern will/can give up that route (it's in the Chiltern Passenger Service Requirement).

Despite several evaluations in recent years of reinstatement of the rail link between Oxford and Cambridge no case for rebuilding has yet been proven; yet another (although more limited) feasibility study is now underway. The best that EastWest Rail (the consortium of local authorities and other interested stakeholders) is currently hoping for is reinstatement of Oxford to Bedford, and this with extra Infrastructure Growth Fund money (the same money that's being used for AVP) for the MK/South Midlands Growth Area skewing investment away from other strategic and medium-sized public transport projects (apart from guided busways in Cambridgeshire - go figure... )

Apologies once again for spoiling the fun but when the powers-that-be can't even get a simple project like the Croxley Link right (fifty-odd years and counting) then there's no chance of the proposals being mentioned here ever seeing the light of day.

THC

You are quite correct with your comments. Most of the SB trains from Amersham in the morning peak go to Aldgate, including the first SB at 0538(?), which is always quite busy, even at that time of the day.

You also have to remember our friends in Chesham; if one or both of the through trains from the city are cancelled in the morning or evening peak, a lot of people are not happy, and on some occasions, it has caused quite heavy loadings on the shuttle, that then runs to fill the gap. Think 8 cars of A stock into 4 carsof A stock?!

So although it sounds like a good idea to let Chiltern have the met main, i dont think it would really be that practical as it sounds. If it was to go ahead, Chiltern would have to put in a rather big order for more Turbostars too!

I wouldnt worry about the train interiors. London Underground seem determined not to specifically cater for the long distance travler on the met with the 's' stock.

Someone will shoot me for this, but would it be possible to build a link from met to chiltern at roughly Lords station? That is it would be useful for fast met trains to use the chiltern line if they were doing an aylesbury run.

Then there is the whole different matter that LULs gates dont seem to like NR tickets!

It's no use! I have kept my mouth shut too long, but this posting has prompted me! I am sick to death of having problems with at least one of our travelcard tickets at LUL gates [and also Charing X Saturday] when we buy them off the very friendly guards on SWT trains at Ashurt New Forest. We keep having to appeal to the nice SAs to let one of us out with their pass because the darned barriers reject one/some of our Travelcards.

As regards Chiltern, don't forget that they signed up to a franchise and have their contract now to run the services that they do. Any suggestion of LU giving up the line to Amersham etc. would require a lot of legal manoeuvering.

I meant continue running to Amersham/extend to Aylesbury and got confused myself.
a large number of people from those stations prefer Chiltern's services anyway stating "comfort", which is odd as the trains are rather full pulling into Amersham, nevermind leaving, there's less standing room if you can't sit down, less leg room and so on.

there are better reasons to choose Chiltern - even though Marylebone has not very good onward connections, a walk to baker street is quicker than a met train. Also, due to direct Cheshams, the frequency is no better on the met, and the reverse journey in the evening is problematic, due to delays at the London end, the low frequency (chesham again) and more conflicts. Marylebone is nicer to wait at than Baker Street as well.

I think that s stock will swing the balance more towards Chiltern - less seats, less comfy seats, longitudinal seats, less standing space, etc will not be outweighed by faster, newer trains.

even in peak hours - hence all the fuss about Chiltern cutting peak trains. It may be more pronunced off-peak when less people need to go to the city, however peak hour commuters not heading for met line stations do take chilterns out of preference.
yes, however most people can read a timetable so choose to arrive just before a chiltern arrives (or in my case, the reverse!) - those people are just testiment to the fact that out here in the sticks people would much rather use Chiltern as opposed to the met, even to the point of being redicilously stupid about it.
I don't want more frequent Chesham trains - I was bemoaning the fact that they steal paths from Amersham trains, making it only 2tph met in peaks. I was refering to the direct Chesham trains, not the shuttle (which they could run to Amersham in the peaks to try and give some relief to the poor service)of course, but people aim to get Chilterns and the met is a "back up service" if they miss it. Also don't forget that Amersham has the same wait in peak hours.

you could always take it off the map, have Chiltern run the services and stations, have NR fares apply and run them into the two terminating platforms at Baker Street.

Now there's a thought! All we have to do is make them "consume their own smoke" or something like that - just like when steam engines made the trip.

What would that achieve, as if that was the case, you may as well leave it as it is at the moment??

However the number of passengers that do not take the chiltern is more than those that do. To be honest, when the Chilterns arrive at Amersham, on most occasions, they are already full, or at least standing room only.



I am not agreeing with you, but again i dont want to start an arguement over that! The chiltern journey to Harrow is no quicker if you let a met train go south, which is what a lot of people do. The ONLY reason they do that is because they think it is QUICKER, which then it isnt. I have seen people that are in a mad rush to get to Harrow, and they will then wait 15 - 20 mins for a Chiltern as they think it somehow overtakes everything and gets to Harrow within a couple of minutes.



I was referring to any train that travels between Chalfont and Chesham, so you have to agree that doesnt just include the shuttle does it?!



Between Aldgate and Baker Street, maybe. The reason that there are not more Amersham services is, as i outlined earlier, and that is because there are far more Chiltern Services at that time of the day.



Yes.



You can do that now.

which is exactly my point - irrational preference for chiltern. Chilterns ARE quicker between Amersham and Harrow, however the difference is minimal (couple of seconds), and unless you are getting a train out of Marylebone, there's no time advantage in waiting the 10 minutes for the Chiltern. I never said it was worth waiting for a chiltern - I think my words were "Irrational preference of Chiltern" or words to that effect. People do prefer Chiltern, which is what i said, and what you have said. Whether it's a sensible reason or not doesn't come into it! I cannot see where the disagreement is!

I actually deliberately wait for a Met, when time isn't of the essence, as I feel it's worth ten minutes of my time to have a quieter, more spacious and comfy train and easier onward interchange - I have the opposite of these people - an irrational preference for the met, though I haven't fallen for a false economy.
hence what i said - i agreed with you yet you decided I didn't. That I never said it took longer, and you assumed i had, but doesn't come into it. I agree with you here - shuttle and through trains both take exactly the same amount of time to do chalfont-chesham-chalfont. this covers all trains, not just the shuttle, just like you said, and just like I said - where did I say the opposite?
so Chesham through trains don't take any paths off Amersham through trains, it's the Chilterns, dispite if the through Cheshams were replaced by shuttles, the number of Amersham trains would increase (what you said by "yes". I really don't understand how this works - I know that the extra Chilterns take paths as well as through Cheshams, however that the through Cheshams stop there being more Amershams, surely that is taking up paths that Amershams can use? Between chalfont and aldgate, chesham and amersham trains use the same track, therefore the chesham train is using a path that an amersham could use, stealing it's path!


You can do that now. [/quote]the reverse is definitely impossible - Amersham isn't on NR computers - you can buy in advance (maybe), but that's all, and I've tried to get tickets to Southampton at Chalfont and failed. I've got YPRC discount on a travelcard, and that's it really (and i had to explain that this was allowed at Euston, though Amersham and Chalfont (if there's someone there) do know). Anyway, the ticket prices on the NR site for Amersham is basically a z1-6D travelcard, plus any onward boundary 6-destination - it's even more expensive than the 5p more expensive price, because NR can only do travelcards, not singles/returns to/from Amersham, other than to places with direct trains (and maybe other Chiltern stations).