On Sep 14, 12:06*am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
"allantracy" *wrote in message

...

He also informed me of something I had not realised, namely, that
there are no longer any day time fast trains on the Met to Amersham
(or Chesham), only during the peaks and, even then, small in number.

And only inbound in the morning peak and outbound in the evening peak.

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

In the longer term Chiltern's Aylesbury route should be extended to
Milton Keynes thru Granborough Rd, and Birmingham Snow Hill thru
Verney Junction and Banbury. That might take a tad more vision than
currently found in Westminster and Whitehall.

"77002" wrote

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Peter

On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"77002" *wrote



Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail
travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core
market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's
Metropolitan Line.

The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"77002" *wrote



Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail
travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core
market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's
Metropolitan Line.

The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

That's certainly true, but I think that means Birmingham, rather than
Aylesbury and Chesham. And Chiltern has already said it's
unenthusiastic about running through to Bletchley.

Recliner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"77002" *wrote



Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail
travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core
market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's
Metropolitan Line.

The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

That's certainly true, but I think that means Birmingham, rather than
Aylesbury and Chesham. And Chiltern has already said it's
unenthusiastic about running through to Bletchley.


Chiltern is losing money.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother
take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather
than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the
link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what?

B2003

On Sep 14, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. *Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother
take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather
than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the
link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what?


He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want
access to the town center. Others will use the station for
interchange purposes.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want

I'm sure there are some. Most of whom will take the car if they're going
shopping there.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.

The only reason people take the tube to london is because driving there is
slow and expensive. The same does not apply to driving and parking in
watford.

I still don't see a viable business case for the link.

B2003

On 2012\09\14 14:23, 77002 wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother
take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather
than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the
link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what?


He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want
access to the town center. Others will use the station for
interchange purposes.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.


So if the purpose is to benefit Watford shops and screw Harrow shops,
why is TfL even considering it?

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:11:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"77002" wrote

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Yes, I remember that proposal, which was live for several years. I
think a link with the WCML main line would make more sense, with no
conflicts on electrification systems.