"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
Recliner wrote:

For anyone who would like to ride the Watford North curve on a normal
service train, TfL has an Easter present for you.

Most of the Met will be closed for track work over the four day
weekend, but TfL says a "special Metropolitan line train service
operates between Northwood and Chesham/Amersham via Watford".

There will be replacement bus services covering the closed parts of
the line not covered by other LU lines.

I took a ride on this today and whilst it was great to use it the wider
experience suggests TfL needs to drastically overhaul its information
strategies.

Firstly most of the Met was down but rather than basing rail replacement
buses on the Met's own route they instead ran to connect to a variety of
other lines. However getting information about these buses at non-Met tube
stations was almost impossible.

Secondly a lot of stations did little to properly direct people to the RRBs.
Watford was one of the worst with no signage at all and just a staffer
giving vague directions to a bus stop that has no indication whatsoever that
it's where RRBs will stop en route to Watford Junction. Worse still it's
accessed via the carpark rather than the main approach.

Thirdly it was very hard to get consistent information as to what the
service was. The engineering works map shows the services disrupted and not
as running. Knowledge of the curve is rare and it doesn't appear on any map
so many people couldn't understand that a train would serve both Watford and
Chesham/Amersham.

It didn't help with the service using a mix of special and automatic notices
that confuse the hell out of people. So at Northwick the platform indicators
explained it would be a combined service every fifteen minutes with
alternating destinations and a c5 minute stopover at Watford. However the
train that arrived had onboard indicators saying it was for Watford and only
switching to the alternate service at Watford itself.

Announncements both on the train and platform at Moor Park and were telling
passengers to switch here for Chesham/Amersham despite that side of the
triangle
being closed. Similarly some announcements around Rickmansworth seem to have
assumed through running to Moor Park.

Many passengers were utterly confused and onboard train announcements did
little to help. One woman called a helpline that seemed to assume the normal
service rather than explain the special one.

The biggies for future engineering specials must be:

* Information posters must show the route as it is not as it isn't
* Electronic displays must use a single way to display the service.
* Automatic announcements must be turned off.
* RRBs should go to the stations themselves in all but exceptional
circumstances and clear maps and signs must show where the RRB stop is.


Yes, I went on it too, and observed some of the same points.

At Northwood, the signs weren't clear enough to stop southbound pax
entering the station and heading down to the southbound platform, and then
being confused by announcements telling them to go back up and get a bus
from outside -- I wonder how their Oyster cards were charged? There should
have been someone stopping them at entry and redirecting them to the rail
replacement bus stop. Also, trains waiting to reverse spent pointless time
in the southbound platform, rather than going straight to the siding and
returning to wait in the northbound platform. At least the station
announcements were correct and informative.

At Watford, I didn't leave the station, but didn't see any signs on the
platforms. The electronic signs just said the usual default thing about the
platforms being for southbound trains: normally true when no trains are
expected, but not necessarily so this weekend. They should have either
updated the PIS or turned it off.

I heard at least one automated station announcement saying that the Met and
all other LU lines had a good service. This was a classic case of being
technically true (ie, the limited services were running as planned), but
highly misleading to a normal passenger. As you say, such announcements
should be turned off if they can't be updated, which shouldn't be all that
difficult for a long-planned four-day closure.

In contrast, the onboard announcements on the trains I went on were OK, but
with no mention of the rare route. I didn't spot any other track bashers.
The North curve track was smooth and felt like any other service track.
It's interesting that this little-used line was never singled.

I'd obviously researched the rail replacement bus routes in advance, but I
think it was confusing for those who hadn't. The bus stops weren't always
clearly marked, either. Maps showing the actual open rail and replacement
bus routes would have been very useful, but I saw none.

Harrow bus station is also closed over Easter, as it's being used for
access to the line, which caused further confusion, as buses stopped
further up the road; needless to say, the rail replacement buses didn't go
anywhere near the bus station. So someone arriving by local bus and needing
to then use a rail replacement bus had to cross the closed line via the
station overbridge.

And just to add to the fun, the WCML was also shut through Watford
Junction, and there were road closures around the station so the bridge
could be reconstructed.

On 03/04/2015 22:50, Recliner wrote:

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
[Watford North curve service]
I took a ride on this today and whilst it was great to use it the wider
experience suggests TfL needs to drastically overhaul its information
strategies.

Yes, I went on it too, and observed some of the same points.


I haven't been on it, but I'm disappointed to hear about the lack of
information provision.

However, without even having been anywhere near it I can still add to
the complaints about poor presentation of information. On the TfL
service status page, the information about replacement buses is all
presented in one solid block of text, with no formatting whatsoever - so
it's a bit of work just to see that there are four different replacement
bus services (A to D) running.

In days gone by, leaflets with maps showing the bus services overlayed
on to the Tube map have been produced, and these maps (or at least the
whole leaflet as a PDF) have been made available on the TfL website. I
used to find such things genuinely helpful as a way of visualising what
was going on.

It seems that in this brave new world, such special leaflets are a
rarity or just non-existent (see discussion about Christmas services and
lack of leaflet) as information provision is all on the web -
unfortunately, often it also seems that no-one is making an effort to
present the information with clarity on the web, as well as the lack of
info on the ground.


For reference, this is the text on the service status page for the
Metropolitan line for the long Easter weekend:

---quote---
METROPOLITAN LINE: Good Friday 3, Saturday 4, Sunday 5 and Easter Monday
6 April, no service between Aldgate and Northwood / Uxbridge. A special
Metropolitan line train service operates between Northwood and Chesham /
Amersham via Watford, and there will be additional Piccadilly line
services to Uxbridge. No Chiltern Railways service between Marylebone
and Great Missenden. Replacement bus services operate.

London Underground replacement buses operate Service A: Kenton (for
Bakerloo line and London Overground) - Harrow-on-the-Hill - West Harrow
(Pinner Road) - North Harrow - Rayners Lane (for Piccadilly line for
stations to/from Uxbridge and Central London) Service B: Wembley Park -
Preston Road - Kenton (for Bakerloo line and London Overground) -
Northwick Park - Harrow-on-the-Hill - West Harrow (Pinner Road) - North
Harrow - Pinner - Northwood Hills - Northwood Service C: Stonebridge
Park (for Bakerloo line and London Overground) - Wembley Park, on Easter
Monday, buses continue to Kingsbury - Queensbury - Canons Park (Honeypot
Lane) - Stanmore Service D: Baker Street - St John's Wood - Swiss
Cottage - Finchley Road - West Hampstead - Kilburn - Willesden Green -
Dollis Hill - Neasden - Wembley Park Service E: West Ruislip (for
Central line and Chiltern Railways) - Ruislip (for Piccadilly line),
served by buses towards Watford Junction only due to roadworks in
Ruislip High Street - Rickmansworth - Croxley - Watford - Watford
Junction (for London Overground and National Rail) Chiltern Railways
replacement service Great Missenden - Amersham - Beaconsfield (for
connections to London Marylebone)
---/quote---


Regardless of anything else, how much do a few line breaks cost?! The
final destinations end up running into the next bus route (e.g. [...]
Northwood Hills - Northwood Service C: Stonebridge Park [...]). It's all
just comes across as a bit half arsed.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
But as both Amersham and Watford are well outside London, it's hard
to see
why TfL and the London mayor would want to subsidise such services.
Would

If they're served by the tube then there's no reason why TfL
shouldn't cough up
if the route is viable since they're getting ticket revenue from non
london
residents. Otherwise put the buffers at Harrow and let chiltern take
over the
rest of the line.

I don't think the fare revenue from an Amersham Watford Junction
shuttle
would even cover the operating costs, let alone the capital cost of a
couple of additional S8 trains.

That's a strange meaning of "Operating costs" that doesn't include the
costs of the stock

Why is it strange? It's completely normal.

Is it?

It wouldn't be if the item being operated was a car (taxi) or a bus.

Why not? You'd have the fixed cost to lease the asset, and the variable
operating costs to run it. That's exactly how trucks, buses, trains or
planes are accounted for. Some planes and aircraft engines are charged on
a
power-by-the-hour basis, which includes all those costs in on single
payment, which is how taxi fares work.

Operating costs and capital costs are usually quoted separately for an
asset.

But it's a depreciating asset. It's not the same as the track. It's
good for 30 years use at which time you throw it away.

The lease cost takes that into account. It includes the interest on the
original loan, and the depreciation.

I know it does

that's why the lease cost is an operational cost

It a cost that occurs , on a day to day basis, just to run the service.

If you decide not to run the service you can avoid that cost by using the
asset elsewhere for a different service or by giving it back to the lease
company and not paying for it at all. You can't do that with the track.

tim

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:

For anyone who would like to ride the Watford North curve on a normal
service train, TfL has an Easter present for you.

Most of the Met will be closed for track work over the four day
weekend, but TfL says a "special Metropolitan line train service
operates between Northwood and Chesham/Amersham via Watford".

There will be replacement bus services covering the closed parts of
the line not covered by other LU lines.

I took a ride on this today and whilst it was great to use it the wider
experience suggests TfL needs to drastically overhaul its information
strategies.

Firstly most of the Met was down but rather than basing rail replacement
buses on the Met's own route they instead ran to connect to a variety of
other lines. However getting information about these buses at non-Met tube
stations was almost impossible.

welcome to the world of replacement buses.

With some national rail service you can't even get information on the buses
from the stations that they replace.

Some higher up contracts the buses to run and after that they are managed by
the bus company. The railway take no interest at all in the operation on
the day with their staff knowing nothing

tim

Recliner wrote:

Regarding the seemingly hard to financially justify (and increasingly
expensive) Croxley Link, one is again minded to think of the more
adventurous possibilities of (Chiltern) services from Aylesbury to
Watford Jn via the new route.

Yes, that's certainly been suggested. A more likely possibility, but very
hard for TfL to justify financially, would be a 2tph Amersham to Watford
Junction shuttle. That would replace the services diverted to Chesham, and
let Amersham pax transfer to Chesham services to London, as well as going
to Watford.

It's probably a few years too late now but one possibility might have been
to convert the old Chesham shuttle into a Chesham to Watford route and keep
Amersham's 4tph. This could have solved the problems of the S stock being to
long for the Chalfont & Latimer bay, the lack of interchange between the
Watford branch and Chiltern north of Harrow, the journey length without
semi-fasts and the difficulties of serving both Amersham and Chesham.

Of course this would probably fail on stock availability and it may have
been hard to find the pax from Rickmansworth wanting to go to Croxley and
Cassiobridge, but it might have solved some other problems. Now it would
doubtessly bring howls from Chesham at the loss of through services to
London.

But as both Amersham and Watford are well outside London, it's hard to see
why TfL and the London mayor would want to subsidise such services. Would
Bucks and Herts councils want to jointly subsidise such a service?
Somehow,
I can't see it.

By that reasoning one could just stop the tube at border stations - so the
Met terminating at Moor Park or even Northwood and the Central at
Loughton/Buckhurst Hill. Howls of pain from pax beyond but they would have
no say in the Mayor's ballot box.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:28:00 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
But as both Amersham and Watford are well outside London, it's hard
to see
why TfL and the London mayor would want to subsidise such services.
Would

If they're served by the tube then there's no reason why TfL
shouldn't cough up
if the route is viable since they're getting ticket revenue from non
london
residents. Otherwise put the buffers at Harrow and let chiltern take
over the
rest of the line.

I don't think the fare revenue from an Amersham Watford Junction
shuttle
would even cover the operating costs, let alone the capital cost of a
couple of additional S8 trains.

That's a strange meaning of "Operating costs" that doesn't include the
costs of the stock

Why is it strange? It's completely normal.

Is it?

It wouldn't be if the item being operated was a car (taxi) or a bus.

Why not? You'd have the fixed cost to lease the asset, and the variable
operating costs to run it. That's exactly how trucks, buses, trains or
planes are accounted for. Some planes and aircraft engines are charged on
a
power-by-the-hour basis, which includes all those costs in on single
payment, which is how taxi fares work.

Operating costs and capital costs are usually quoted separately for an
asset.

But it's a depreciating asset. It's not the same as the track. It's
good for 30 years use at which time you throw it away.

The lease cost takes that into account. It includes the interest on the
original loan, and the depreciation.

I know it does

that's why the lease cost is an operational cost

It's the servicing and repayment of a capital cost, not an operating
cost.

It a cost that occurs , on a day to day basis, just to run the service.

No, that's the point. It's a cost that occurs on a monthly or annual
basis, whether you run the service or not.


If you decide not to run the service you can avoid that cost by using the
asset elsewhere for a different service or by giving it back to the lease
company and not paying for it at all. You can't do that with the track.

If you decide not to run the service, you save the operating cost, but
not the capital cost. So you don't have to power, clean or maintain
the train, or pay the staff to run it, but you're still lumbered with
the fixed capital cost (as well as other fixed costs, like insurance
and stabling). You can't just send it back to the lease company, as
you'll be locked into a long-term lease, or will have bought it
outright.

For specialised assets like S stock trains, which have no market other
than on LU, you'd be locked into a life-of-train lease of, say, 25
years. It's different with assets that have other markets (eg, a car
or standard airliner), where the minimum lease may be for, say, five
years.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 11:11:06 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Recliner wrote:

Regarding the seemingly hard to financially justify (and increasingly
expensive) Croxley Link, one is again minded to think of the more
adventurous possibilities of (Chiltern) services from Aylesbury to
Watford Jn via the new route.

Yes, that's certainly been suggested. A more likely possibility, but very
hard for TfL to justify financially, would be a 2tph Amersham to Watford
Junction shuttle. That would replace the services diverted to Chesham, and
let Amersham pax transfer to Chesham services to London, as well as going
to Watford.

It's probably a few years too late now but one possibility might have been
to convert the old Chesham shuttle into a Chesham to Watford route and keep
Amersham's 4tph. This could have solved the problems of the S stock being to
long for the Chalfont & Latimer bay, the lack of interchange between the
Watford branch and Chiltern north of Harrow, the journey length without
semi-fasts and the difficulties of serving both Amersham and Chesham.

Of course this would probably fail on stock availability and it may have
been hard to find the pax from Rickmansworth wanting to go to Croxley and
Cassiobridge, but it might have solved some other problems. Now it would
doubtessly bring howls from Chesham at the loss of through services to
London.

Yes, I think that would have been a very good plan, and might be a
better idea even now than an Amersham (or Aylesbury) to Watford
Junction shuttle. I don't think the Chesham commuters would lose much,
and some may even value a direct link to Watford, as would some
Amersham residents.


But as both Amersham and Watford are well outside London, it's hard to see
why TfL and the London mayor would want to subsidise such services. Would
Bucks and Herts councils want to jointly subsidise such a service?
Somehow,
I can't see it.

By that reasoning one could just stop the tube at border stations - so the
Met terminating at Moor Park or even Northwood and the Central at
Loughton/Buckhurst Hill. Howls of pain from pax beyond but they would have
no say in the Mayor's ballot box.

It's one reason why the Ongar line died, when Essex refused to stump
up more subsidy. I don't know if Herts and Bucks councils make any
contribution to TfL, or if the services into those counties are
financially self-supporting. Or does central government chip in on
behalf of the home counties?

Recliner wrote:

Yes, I think that would have been a very good plan, and might be a
better idea even now than an Amersham (or Aylesbury) to Watford
Junction shuttle. I don't think the Chesham commuters would lose much,
and some may even value a direct link to Watford, as would some
Amersham residents.

Of course Watford High Street and Watford Junction are a different prospect.
Finding people who want to travel to the outskirts of Watford is a different
matter. The last attempt to make the Croxley Green branch work wound up as a
farce as empty trains ran back and forth during the day.

(Was the branch ever hooked up to other lines to provide through services
that people wanted? ISTR reading there were trains to Broad Street but was
that actually a popular commuter route or just a way to run extra trains on
the DC lines without clogging Watford Junction?)

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Yes, I think that would have been a very good plan, and might be a
better idea even now than an Amersham (or Aylesbury) to Watford
Junction shuttle. I don't think the Chesham commuters would lose much,
and some may even value a direct link to Watford, as would some
Amersham residents.

Of course Watford High Street and Watford Junction are a different prospect.
Finding people who want to travel to the outskirts of Watford is a different
matter. The last attempt to make the Croxley Green branch work wound up as a
farce as empty trains ran back and forth during the day.

I think Croxley Green wasn't near anywhere useful then; the area has been
developed a lot recently, and people are now less likely to want to use
cars. But it's the connection to the Met that will make the line much
busier, not the limited traffic from the new Cassiobridge station.

(Was the branch ever hooked up to other lines to provide through services
that people wanted? ISTR reading there were trains to Broad Street but was
that actually a popular commuter route or just a way to run extra trains on
the DC lines without clogging Watford Junction?)

Yes, it appears that there were a very few direct trains from Croxley Green
to Euston and Broad St over the southern part of the triangle (not planned
for reinstatement) until 1966.

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/f...ve/index.shtml

Mizter T wrote:

However, without even having been anywhere near it I can still add to the
complaints about poor presentation of information. On the TfL service
status page, the information about replacement buses is all presented in
one solid block of text, with no formatting whatsoever - so it's a bit of
work just to see that there are four different replacement bus services (A
to D) running.

Actually it's five but that just proves your point.

It seems that in this brave new world, such special leaflets are a rarity
or just non-existent (see discussion about Christmas services and lack of
leaflet) as information provision is all on the web - unfortunately, often
it also seems that no-one is making an effort to present the information
with clarity on the web, as well as the lack of info on the ground.

It also doesn't help that WiFi provision at many stations is poor and very
bad on trains. And the webpage on the journey planner is slow and painful
because it seems to have stations and bus stops outside as separate entries
and then gets upset if a user hasn't been clear - but on an intermittant
connection the options don't load quickly enough. Not everyone has the TfL
apps downloaded on a smartphone with preset usage that makes it easy to zoom
in on what they need - and indeed weekend and holiday traffic is even less
likely to have them.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c