I'd suggest Chiltern, given that LM don't even want to operate the branches they do have already, i.e. Watford-St. Albans, Bletchley-Bedford, and probably several north of there.

On Sat, 7 May 2011 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote:
I'd suggest Chiltern, given that LM don't even want to operate the
branches they do have already, i.e. Watford-St. Albans,
Bletchley-Bedford, and probably several north of there.

What evidence do you have that LM do not want the branches? It's not
as if they cost them anything, as I'm sure if they were closed or
otherwise removed from the franchise the subsidy would be reduced
accordingly.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On May 7, 7:11*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I'd suggest Chiltern, given that LM don't even want to operate the branches they do have already, i.e. Watford-St. Albans, Bletchley-Bedford, and probably several north of there.

Chiltern have historically been interested in extending their reach.
Of course, now, they are under new management.

On May 8, 8:45*pm, 1506 wrote:

On May 7, 7:11*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I'd suggest Chiltern, given that LM don't even want to operate the
branches they do have already, i.e. Watford-St. Albans, Bletchley-Bedford,
and probably several north of there.

Chiltern have historically been interested in extending their reach.
Of course, now, they are under new management.

Where's Figgis? He needs to deliver his line...

"1506" wrote in message

On May 7, 7:11 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I'd suggest Chiltern, given that LM don't even want to operate the
branches they do have already, i.e. Watford-St. Albans,
Bletchley-Bedford, and probably several north of there.

Chiltern have historically been interested in extending their reach.
Of course, now, they are under new management.

Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns more
than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest station is on
the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.

"Recliner" wrote:

Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns more
than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest station is on
the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.


That's probably because Chiltern gets derisory revenue from TfL for
services within Travelcard zones 1-6 and also stations from Amersham
to Rickmansworth.

For example, Chiltern has reduced peak services to and from Amersham
because the returns simply don't justify providing services. I feel
sure that this problem is shared by other TOCs with London termini,
plus cross-London services, so let's not use it as an excuse to bash
one particular TOC, eh?

I don't know whether this was the reason behind last year's swingeing
price rise for Travelcards from Amersham. The price of a one day off
peak Travelcard rose from £9.00 to £11.00, a 22% rise, set against an
average LUL fare rise of 6%.

Coupled with a significant increase in parking charges at Amersham,
this has caused me to revise my travel plans for visits to London,
almost all of which are off peak.

Previously, driving to Amersham, parking and taking the train to
London was an easy and logical choice. Now, if I am travelling alone,
I either take the train from either Aylesbury (taxi to/from station)
or Stoke Mandeville (drive and park), or drive all the way. I have
used the train just once in 2011.

Most of my trips to London are with my partner and now we always
drive, because using the train makes no financial sense when two or
more are travelling.

Thanks, Boris! ;-)

"Bruce" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote:

Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns
more than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest
station is on the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.


That's probably because Chiltern gets derisory revenue from TfL for
services within Travelcard zones 1-6 and also stations from Amersham
to Rickmansworth.

For example, Chiltern has reduced peak services to and from Amersham
because the returns simply don't justify providing services. I feel
sure that this problem is shared by other TOCs with London termini,
plus cross-London services, so let's not use it as an excuse to bash
one particular TOC, eh?

I wasn't bashing Chiltern, just pointing out that its development
ambitions were further away from London than places like Watford (also
in the Oyster zone). To be fair, the Chiltern service at my station has
actually improved from almost non-existent to derisory in recent years,
but it's still not frequent enough to be useful when there's a Tube
station a couple of minutes walk away.

"Recliner" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote:

Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns
more than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest
station is on the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.


That's probably because Chiltern gets derisory revenue from TfL for
services within Travelcard zones 1-6 and also stations from Amersham
to Rickmansworth.

For example, Chiltern has reduced peak services to and from Amersham
because the returns simply don't justify providing services. I feel
sure that this problem is shared by other TOCs with London termini,
plus cross-London services, so let's not use it as an excuse to bash
one particular TOC, eh?

I wasn't bashing Chiltern, just pointing out that its development
ambitions were further away from London than places like Watford (also
in the Oyster zone). To be fair, the Chiltern service at my station has
actually improved from almost non-existent to derisory in recent years,
but it's still not frequent enough to be useful when there's a Tube
station a couple of minutes walk away.


If there's a Tube station such a short distance away, perhaps there
would appear to be a case for dropping Chiltern's stops at the main
line station?

Sounds suspiciously like Sudbury Hill ...

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

"Recliner" wrote:

Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns more
than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest station is on
the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.

That's probably because Chiltern gets derisory revenue from TfL for
services within Travelcard zones 1-6 and also stations from Amersham
to Rickmansworth.

For example, Chiltern has reduced peak services to and from Amersham
because the returns simply don't justify providing services. I feel
sure that this problem is shared by other TOCs with London termini,
plus cross-London services, so let's not use it as an excuse to bash
one particular TOC, eh?

I don't know whether this was the reason behind last year's swingeing
price rise for Travelcards from Amersham. The price of a one day off
peak Travelcard rose from £9.00 to £11.00, a 22% rise, set against an
average LUL fare rise of 6%.

Even at £11 it is still cheaper than anywhere else a similar distance from
London.

eg Beaconsfield £18.00, Hemel Hempstead £17.00.

Peter Smyth

"Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ...
"Recliner" wrote:
Actually, Chiltern has shown very little interest in picking up more
commuter traffic from the London suburbs. It's more interested in
becoming a regional operator, focused on moving people from towns more
than 50 miles to London. I say this sadly, as my nearest station is on
the Chiltern line, and it gets a derisory service.

That's probably because Chiltern gets derisory revenue from TfL for
services within Travelcard zones 1-6 and also stations from Amersham
to Rickmansworth.

For example, Chiltern has reduced peak services to and from Amersham
because the returns simply don't justify providing services. I feel
sure that this problem is shared by other TOCs with London termini,
plus cross-London services, so let's not use it as an excuse to bash
one particular TOC, eh?

I don't know whether this was the reason behind last year's swingeing
price rise for Travelcards from Amersham. The price of a one day off
peak Travelcard rose from £9.00 to £11.00, a 22% rise, set against an
average LUL fare rise of 6%.

Even at £11 it is still cheaper than anywhere else a similar distance from
London.

eg Beaconsfield £18.00, Hemel Hempstead £17.00.


True, but the 22% rise was out of all proportion to the average LUL
fare rise of 6%. How on earth could an additional 16% on top of the
average rise be justified?

I live in Aylesbury. I used to drive to Amersham, park and buy a
Travelcard because it was cheaper than buying a Travelcard from
Aylesbury, especially if more than one of us was travelling. The 22%
rise took away enough of the saving to make it no longer worthwhile.

As I said (you snipped it) the result is that I rarely use the train.