|
|
Post by plampin on Mar 17, 2008 20:36:39 GMT
Does TFL still plan to remove the through peak workings on that branch in favor of enhanced shuttle service? Speaking of which, why couldn't two of the 4 ex-Amersham trains per hour off peak be projected to Chesham? That would make it easier for Chesham passengers to get to/from Central London; and Amersham passengers who have to board a Chiltern train can change at any station where Chilterns and Mets share the same platform. The consulatation took note of what the passengers wanted and kept the two through peak trains. The trouble comes when the through trains are late, does the shuttle then do an extra trip, at the risk of still being on the single line as the through train gets to Chalfont and then have to be diverted to Amersham, or do they leave it in the bay and cause a delay on the branch? However at least the passengers were able to choose! As teh the Chilterns, many no longer stop at stations other than Amersham and some run fast from London to Gt. Missenden. As the peak trains are longer, they are often unable to call at Rickmansworth, due to shorter platforms there. So, the Chilterns are not a good alternative for a number of passengers. despite the fact that i don't use the underground and chilterns services very often i can tell you that the chiltern trains are often only formed of 2 cars on the service to aylesbury via amersham, i think the reason chiltern trains don't call at rickmansworth is that they want to save time and there is an agreement with london underground which says that chiltern can't take away passengers from london underground, the bulk of people on the branch come from rickmansworth and london underground want them all to use their services not chilterns. If you do some research i think that you would find that this agreement has be going since the forming of the great central railway. Please correct me if i am wrong on any of this |
|
|
|
Post by plampin on Mar 17, 2008 20:42:07 GMT
I think you'll find that the trains to Amersham and Chesham get just as delayed as any other service. In the morning peaks, any disruption in the City area causes trains from Amersham/Chesham to be terminated at Harrow in preference to Uxbridge and Watford trains. So I don't think that it's a valid complaint, and sounds more like a chip on shoulder problem. That is certainly true, i have only ever expirienced 1 problem on the uxbridge branch, however i must have had about 50 problems with the amersham trains, it makes me so angry that the uxbridge service gets priority. Ofcourse back in days gone by or about 5 years ago the amersham service had priority throughout the day but was still badly run giving the entire met line a bad name |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 17, 2008 20:48:27 GMT
Also Chiltern don't want to stop at Ricky because the trains would be packed! They used to stop at Moor Park, but the roads got so busy on the estate, BR trains were convinced not to stop there!
|
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Mar 17, 2008 20:49:27 GMT
The consulatation took note of what the passengers wanted and kept the two through peak trains. The trouble comes when the through trains are late, does the shuttle then do an extra trip, at the risk of still being on the single line as the through train gets to Chalfont and then have to be diverted to Amersham, or do they leave it in the bay and cause a delay on the branch? However at least the passengers were able to choose! As teh the Chilterns, many no longer stop at stations other than Amersham and some run fast from London to Gt. Missenden. As the peak trains are longer, they are often unable to call at Rickmansworth, due to shorter platforms there. So, the Chilterns are not a good alternative for a number of passengers. despite the fact that i don't use the underground and chilterns services very often i can tell you that the chiltern trains are often only formed of 2 cars on the service to aylesbury via amersham, i think the reason chiltern trains don't call at rickmansworth is that they want to save time and there is an agreement with london underground which says that chiltern can't take away passengers from london underground, the bulk of people on the branch come from rickmansworth and london underground want them all to use their services not chilterns. If you do some research i think that you would find that this agreement has be going since the forming of the great central railway. Please correct me if i am wrong on any of this If you don't use the route, how do you know how long the trains are  As I said a number of peak services are longer than the platform at Rickmansworth so that is why they can't call there. Chiltern have reduced the number of stopping services in the peak as they are simply too full by the time they leave Great Missenden on the Up. I am not totally up on the agreements financially with Chiltern, but there is a good operational relationship between the Met/C&H at LUL and Chiltern, with extra trains being allowed to run over LUL metals and them allowing their trains to call additionally when need be, including Moor Park. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 17, 2008 21:20:40 GMT
Off peak chilterns may be 2 cars, but Ive seen 3, 4, and even 5 car trains during the day aswell; and its mostly 4 or 5 car trains during the rush hour. 6 car trains would be too long for the platforms however, at roughly 460 feet long.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Mar 17, 2008 22:21:23 GMT
Any idea why they don't simply extend the platforms then?
More passengers = more revenue, surely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 23:07:21 GMT
But extending the platforms costs money!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Mar 17, 2008 23:20:11 GMT
It possibly wouldn't be a question of more passengers, just the same passengers on different trains, and, potentially, the demand just might not warrant it. Ricky has (or had) a big plan for a relocation and reconstruction aswell.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 18, 2008 9:44:22 GMT
As a Metroland dweller, I can say that the 165s are formed of 3 or 2 cars. This is generally the train length during the slack hours. You do find longer trains but these are either empty or partly in service with the rest of the train being moved after/before the rush hours. Chiltern really don't have enough trains. There are too many cases at 5pm where there is just a two car 165 running to Aylesbury!
|
|
|
|
Post by wellgroomed on Mar 28, 2008 18:07:23 GMT
2 or 3 car Mets do run indeed run in the peak, as a rule of thumb on the fast services which run non-stop from Marylebone to Amersham or Missenden. Most of the peak stopping services are either formed of 4 or 5 cars. With the semi-fasts being 5 or 6. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule in the event of failures, etc!
Rickmansworth platforms can not be extended without re-building the station, thus the restriction remains 5 cars for the forseeable future. Moor Park will only accomodate 5 cars, and Chiltern will usually stop when LUL services are disrupted. All other stations accomodate 6 vehicles.
Services in excess of 6 cars are not permitted.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 28, 2008 18:34:35 GMT
Selective door opening could be used at Ricky could it not? (I don't know how the 165s work to be honest-is it possible?)
|
|
|
|
Post by wellgroomed on Mar 28, 2008 18:38:44 GMT
Hi Metman,
Alas, the 165s are not fitted with selective door opening.
The 168s are however, but they only de-select the set of doors nearest the driver. As a result, the driver would have to draw the train past the platform and would then be unable to use the DOO equipment to ensure the doors were clear of passengers before they were closed.
Thus, it remains unviable unless the problem could be overcome.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 28, 2008 18:57:01 GMT
Hi, cheers. Well Ricky could be extended to the south but it would mean the removal of the crew office(?) and some changes to the track layout.
To be honest I don't think platform extension is a major priority, Chiltern just need to sort out their stock. The 168s are supposed to be used on the Birmingham/County services and the 165s the Bicester/Wycombe/Aylesbury services. I think that 2 cars are fine off peak and 3 extra cars should be added to rush hour workings to make 5 car trains. I don't think Chiltern have enough trains tho and need to rob the Reading-Redhill service of its 165s!
I'll look up how many trains they have.....
|
|
|
|
Post by wellgroomed on Mar 28, 2008 19:43:30 GMT
The S/B platfrom at Ricky would require the removal of No.24 Road/Platform 3 to be extended and, as you say, the N/B platform would require the removal of the booking on point. Whether Station Road underline bridge would take the extra load without structural work - I'm not qualified to say.
Ah, if life were that easy!! There are 11 3 car units in Chiltern's fleet. So taking one out for maintenance, leaves 10 and there are 10 peak trains in the evening. Only the first trip to Aylesbury would get back to London in time for the last trip of the peak. This unfortunately strips the High Wycombe line of 3 cars and whilst I don't have the exact numbers at my finger tips, I can't imagine that each Met service carries 460 people (which is what a 5 car would give you).
Wouldn't more trains be nice tho! If you could just have a chat with Gt. Western... ;o)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 28, 2008 20:22:08 GMT
Nick a few 166s too and let GW have more 180s!!
The problem is there are so many rammed trains on the Amersham/Aylesbury line and with the Vale extension underway more trains will be needed!
|
|
|
|
Post by plampin on Mar 28, 2008 22:25:52 GMT
the future off the chesham service is obviously one that isnt going to resolved soon but sometimes i wish it was handed over to chiltern because they could run a better service with some of their heritage DMU's but i doubt that will ever happen. In the mean time the solution is obvious, either double the branch, or increase the service to every 20 minutes during peaks and get rid of the through trains. The though train is probably going to continue because there will always people who will say that is a good thing and it should be kept although quite clearly the service would run much better without it.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 28, 2008 22:57:26 GMT
Why would the service run better without it? Passengers would have to change all the time (a pain from plats 1 to 3). The single shuttle service wouldn't really be able to make 3 runs an hour. The journey is 9 odd mins as it is. Unless stepping back is used-which is very unlikely.
Chiltern don't want the Chesham branch either and it would cost too much to double the branch plus there isn't the current available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2008 23:33:37 GMT
because they could run a better service with some of their heritage DMU's Sorry, but running a commuter line with heritage trains is a trainspotters idea of running a railway, and is not a realistic way to run a railway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2008 2:09:46 GMT
So the fact that the Chiltern bubble cars have been running a useful service between Risborough and Aylesbury in the peaks for nearly five years is a load of tosh, then?
Considering how low the passenger numbers are in the off-peak, a double-bubble DMU operated by Chiltern (which would have the advantage of training drivers to divert to Chesham when the road north of Chalfont is up the wall) doesn't sound so bad...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2008 2:48:18 GMT
So the fact that the Chiltern bubble cars have been running a useful service between Risborough and Aylesbury in the peaks for nearly five years is a load of tosh, then? Considering how low the passenger numbers are in the off-peak, a double-bubble DMU operated by Chiltern (which would have the advantage of training drivers to divert to Chesham when the road north of Chalfont is up the wall) doesn't sound so bad... I don't quite think those bubble cars will last forever! Also, going from electricity to diesel would be step backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by signalfailure on Mar 29, 2008 11:13:08 GMT
How about sort the track out on the branch line before anything is done. Over the past few months metronet dug it up once and replaced a bit but its still absolute craaaap!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 29, 2008 13:54:21 GMT
I agree! From what I remember the track condition was very poor. Sort it out!! They could even spend a whole week (9 days) doing it. Sat-Mon-Sun!
|
|
|
|
Post by signalfailure on Apr 19, 2008 0:07:52 GMT
Word is Chesham Shuttle (733 Duty) Will be taken off the books as soon as the 'S' Stock arrive's. A through service will be run from Baker Street at the rate of 2t.p.h.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 19, 2008 0:17:44 GMT
Why would the shuttle service be removed when the new Victoria Line 09ts arrives? Do you mean S stock? The Chesham shuttle is T407 btw.
A 2tph service can be run using the 20 gap between Amersham trains-leaving Baker Street at XX20 & XX50.
Where did you hear this?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 19, 2008 11:51:30 GMT
Word is Chesham Shuttle (733 Duty) Will be taken off the books as soon as the 09TS arrive. A through service will be run from Baker Street at the rate of 2t.p.h. Would be ironic if this happened, especially after having a major public consultation about withdrawing the through service altogether! |
|
|
|
Post by signalfailure on Apr 19, 2008 13:34:27 GMT
Superteacher.
I can assure it is going to happen. A lot of the top bosses and group managers have had several discussons.
Shuttle service platform will be a new bay road.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 19, 2008 13:39:50 GMT
because they could run a better service with some of their heritage DMU's Sorry, but running a commuter line with heritage trains is a trainspotters idea of running a railway, and is not a realistic way to run a railway. Why? If there was ever a plan to tranfer Chesham to Chiltern, the branch would be unlikely to justify the expense of a Class 165 or 168. Since there are plenty of Class 121 units capable of working the service, if it were more economical to use these than provide a modern unit, why is this unrealistic? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 19, 2008 20:24:23 GMT
Superteacher. I can assure it is going to happen. A lot of the top bosses and group managers have had several discussons. Shuttle service platform will be a new bay road. I wasn't doubting you - as I've heard nothing, I've no reason to!  I was just making the point about spending all that time (and presumably money) on a public consultation, and then far from withdrawing the peak hour through trains, they introduce an all day through service! |
|
|
|
Post by signalfailure on Apr 19, 2008 21:41:08 GMT
No harm intended my man, sorry if i seemed snappy
Through service will be running from early morning to late at night.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 20, 2008 0:06:14 GMT
Although I have personally worked out a 2tph service from Baker St to Chesham I think keeping the shuttle would be better. The 2 through trains wouldn't add anything to the service to be fair!
|
|
I was just making the point about spending all that time (and presumably money) on a public consultation, and then far from withdrawing the peak hour through trains, they introduce an all day through service!
