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.

On 02/04/2015 13:23, 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.


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.

Mizter T wrote:
On 02/04/2015 13:23, 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.


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.

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.

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.

--
Spud

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. I suppose two car Chiltern DMUs might be a
better fit for the likely loadings. But the service would probably still
need a subsidy.

"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

tim

"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.

Operating costs and capital costs are usually quoted separately for an
asset. So, maintaining, cleaning and powering the stock are operating
costs, but the lease costs represent a repayment of the capital to buy the
trains. The latter is essentially fixed, even if the trains do no mileage.

"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.

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.

So, maintaining, cleaning and powering the stock are operating
costs, but the lease costs represent a repayment of the capital to buy the
trains. The latter is essentially fixed, even if the trains do no mileage.

I thought that was taking into account when deciding how many you needed to
buy

tim

"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.


So, maintaining, cleaning and powering the stock are operating
costs, but the lease costs represent a repayment of the capital to buy the
trains. The latter is essentially fixed, even if the trains do no mileage.

I thought that was taking into account when deciding how many you needed to buy

Sure, but you don't ignore it. My suggestion was that the fare revenue for
an Amersham Watford Junction shuttle wouldn't even cover the variable
operating costs, let alone the lease costs for two S8 trains. So, even if
there were spare S8 trains available for free (there aren't), the service
probably still wouldn't cover its costs.

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.


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