Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

Does anyone agree with me that Chiltern Services should be made 'Pick Up
Only' on services to Aylesbury and 'Drop Off Only' on services to London. I
am tired of people who are crowding up services on Chiltern because they
don't want to travel with LU.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"Hating Thames Trains since 2003"

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Joe
writes
Does anyone agree with me that Chiltern Services should be made 'Pick Up
Only' on services to Aylesbury and 'Drop Off Only' on services to London. I
am tired of people who are crowding up services on Chiltern because they
don't want to travel with LU.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"Hating Thames Trains since 2003"


So when the doors open exactly how are you going to stop people on the
platform boarding the train or getting off?

Bouncers on the platform? Hold people at the gates? Staff manning every
door?

Get real.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

So when the doors open exactly how are you going to stop people on the
platform boarding the train or getting off?
Bouncers on the platform? Hold people at the gates? Staff manning every
door?

Actually many other TOCs like Virgin have done it in the past, and still do
it. Trains will be announced as 'Not stopping'
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"Hating Thames Trains since 2003"

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...
So when the doors open exactly how are you going to stop people on the
platform boarding the train or getting off?
Bouncers on the platform? Hold people at the gates? Staff manning every
door?

Actually many other TOCs like Virgin have done it in the past, and still
do
it. Trains will be announced as 'Not stopping'

In the morning and evening peaks there is now good reason to need to run
Chiltern services non-stop, at least between Amersham and Marylebone, to
achieve maximum revenue per passenger and to provide a reasonable travelling
environment to those passengers. Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of
the revenue goes to Chiltern, from the LUL stations only a proportion (fixed
by the annual passenger survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets. Therefore it
is in their interests to fill the train with non-LUL passengers at peak
times.

Unfortunately, Chiltern are required to provide as many services from each
station (including LUL stations) as they did pre-privatisation. There is no
capacity to run much in the way of additional services, so their hands are
tied and passengers travelling via the Metropolitan will have to continue to
put up with trains wedged full by LUL passengers (sometimes to the detriment
of full-fare passengers travelling to Chiltern destinations) unless the SRA
can be convinced that the current agreement is out of date and does not
benefit current passenger trends.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In the morning and evening peaks there is now good reason to need to run
Chiltern services non-stop, at least between Amersham and Marylebone, to
achieve maximum revenue per passenger and to provide a reasonable
travelling
environment to those passengers. Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100%
of
the revenue goes to Chiltern, from the LUL stations only a proportion
(fixed
by the annual passenger survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets. Therefore it
is in their interests to fill the train with non-LUL passengers at peak
times.

Not just in the Peaks, I travelled on the 10 35 (or whatever it is) and it
was wedged, like normal, after Amersham

Unfortunately, Chiltern are required to provide as many services from each
station (including LUL stations) as they did pre-privatisation. There is
no
capacity to run much in the way of additional services, so their hands are
tied and passengers travelling via the Metropolitan will have to continue
to
put up with trains wedged full by LUL passengers (sometimes to the
detriment
of full-fare passengers travelling to Chiltern destinations) unless the
SRA
can be convinced that the current agreement is out of date and does not
benefit current passenger trends.

Which exactly is the problem. The removal of stops at Moor Park a few years
back made it slightly better, but it has got noticabley worce recently,
especially since the Congestion charge and the stupid signallers @
Marylebone who run a train in front of one that is about to leave and send a
4-car train into a platform that only has room for 2
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"Hating Thames Trains since 2003"

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

If there were fewer Chiltern services from Amersham/Chesham to
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then London Underground would have to run more trains,
which would just slow the Chiltern Trains. (I am assuming that peak hour
trains every 30 minutes would be unacceptable?)

Considering London Underground's track-record (?!) surely it would be better
to hand over this branch to Chiltern and allow them to run trains according
to their timetable, some could be all-stoppers and some express etc.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Kevin Bean" wrote in message
. ..
If there were fewer Chiltern services from Amersham/Chesham to
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then London Underground would have to run more trains,
which would just slow the Chiltern Trains. (I am assuming that peak hour
trains every 30 minutes would be unacceptable?)

Considering London Underground's track-record (?!) surely it would be
better
to hand over this branch to Chiltern and allow them to run trains
according
to their timetable, some could be all-stoppers and some express etc.

I entirely agree, I was (once) quite looking forward to Crossrail. If CRCL
had sole operation of the fast lines north of Harrow-on-the-Hill, with LUL
concentrating on the Uxbridge and Watford branches, then the whole service
could be run in a more professional and satisfactory manner, IMHO!

Another solution, which would benefit flexibility (as CR services are
frequently delayed by late running all stations Met services from the City
to Amersham) would be to reinstate the down avoiding line at Chorleywood, to
enable semi-fast CR services to pass late running Met services. It is not
uncommon for a Chiltern service from Marylebone, first stop Great Missenden
or Amersham, to be stuck behind a stopping Met service all the way from
Harrow to Amersham, resulting in a right-time departure from Marylebone
becoming a 15 or 20-minute late arrival at Aylesbury. Sometimes this is
entirely down to the bloody-minded intransigence of Harrow box, who
*deliberately* bring the CR service to a stand at Harrow and let the LUL
stopper out in front of the CR service - I've lost count of the number of
times that that has happened to me over the past ten years.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In message , Andrew P Smith
writes
So when the doors open exactly how are you going to stop people on the
platform boarding the train or getting off?

Bouncers on the platform? Hold people at the gates? Staff manning every
door?

Staff manning every door was what the long distance Wales-Waterloo
services used to stop those terrible home counties people sullying their
trains.
--
Roland Perry

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Joe
writes

Actually many other TOCs like Virgin have done it in the past, and still do
it. Trains will be announced as 'Not stopping'

OK, so if it's non stopping how will the people get off? You could hold
people at the barriers but if the gate line isn't manned then it won't
happen.

I've not seen the gate line manned at Amersham expect for the AM peak.

What about people already on the platform?

Not really workable is it?
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Jack Taylor
writes
Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of
the revenue goes to Chiltern, from the LUL stations only a proportion (fixed
by the annual passenger survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets.

Can you please tell me when this came into effect?

I understand that Chiltern get free access to LU 'metals' in return for
no passenger revenue from LU stations.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Jack Taylor
writes
Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of
the revenue goes to Chiltern, from the LUL stations only a proportion
(fixed
by the annual passenger survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets.

Can you please tell me when this came into effect?

I understand that Chiltern get free access to LU 'metals' in return for
no passenger revenue from LU stations.

Interesting! That was always my understanding until you or someone else on
this group corrected me last year, insisting that I was wrong and that a
payment was made based upon the annual passenger survey! If Chiltern are not
making anything out of LUL passengers (as I previously understood that they
didn't) then there is even more reason for removing stops from LUL stations
for the benefit of the greater number of revenue-earning passengers from
Amersham and beyond.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In reply to news post, which Jack Taylor wrote on
Sat, 21 Feb 2004 -

Another solution, which would benefit flexibility (as CR services are
frequently delayed by late running all stations Met services from the City
to Amersham) would be to reinstate the down avoiding line at Chorleywood, to
enable semi-fast CR services to pass late running Met services. It is not
uncommon for a Chiltern service from Marylebone, first stop Great Missenden
or Amersham, to be stuck behind a stopping Met service all the way from
Harrow to Amersham, resulting in a right-time departure from Marylebone
becoming a 15 or 20-minute late arrival at Aylesbury. Sometimes this is
entirely down to the bloody-minded intransigence of Harrow box, who
*deliberately* bring the CR service to a stand at Harrow and let the LUL
stopper out in front of the CR service - I've lost count of the number of
times that that has happened to me over the past ten years.




I believe that it is not possible to put the line back in at Chorley
Wood owing to the car park. I often thought that if a connection from
the fast to the slow lines was made between Northwood and Moor park,
then this would create in effect a passing loop. Met trains could be
routed via this connection through the Watford platforms at Moor Park
(providing better inter change with services) and back onto the fast at
the junction south of Rickmansworth. This would allow faster trains to
overtake. I doubt this will happen owing to cost and I wonder if the
LUL points could cope with the increased movements.


Addressing a number of other points -

1 It is not just Chiltern trains that get held up by other operators
trains, there are many occasions a train is held at Harrow to allow a
Chiltern through delaying the Met train. Only last Friday a Met train
at Amersham was "wedged" (well OK I exaggerate a bit!) because the fast
Chiltern service was 20 minutes late

2 If you reduce the stopping trains south of Amersham, this will effect
passengers for Chesham.

3 The gates at Amersham are more often than not manned at peak times
A.M. and P.M. and Saturday A.M. as well

4 There is also quite a lot of people who use Chiltern to get to and
from Harrow, altering the stopping pattern would cause these people
great inconvenience

5 If the Croxley Link ever happens, would Chiltern not wish to get some
revenue from it? Aylesbury / Watford service could be a money spinner

6 If the West Hampstead interchange is built - something Chiltern are
keen on - then this will only allow more LUL passengers onto Chiltern
trains.

7 Chiltern's service to Aylesbury is not a main line. It used to be,
but the long history of the line has made for a complex arrangement of
two companies proving a service to all stations and I always thought
that a ticket for a journey of say 3 miles was just as valid as a ticket
for a journey of 30 miles. If Aylesbury passengers don't like LUL
travellers, why not catch a train via High Wycombe and avoid them all
together, but that would be inconvenient just as not getting on a
Chiltern train would be at LUL stations.
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Jack Taylor
writes

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Jack Taylor
writes
Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of
the revenue goes to Chiltern, from the LUL stations only a proportion
(fixed
by the annual passenger survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets.

Can you please tell me when this came into effect?

I understand that Chiltern get free access to LU 'metals' in return for
no passenger revenue from LU stations.

Interesting! That was always my understanding until you or someone else on
this group corrected me last year, insisting that I was wrong and that a
payment was made based upon the annual passenger survey! If Chiltern are not
making anything out of LUL passengers (as I previously understood that they
didn't) then there is even more reason for removing stops from LUL stations
for the benefit of the greater number of revenue-earning passengers from
Amersham and beyond.


I never corrected you, must have been someone else. Yes there is reason
for Chiltern to non stop that section of line but I hope they never do.
They should be working with LU to provide a top level service. Chiltern
should get a cut of the money and pay track access fees to LU.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Matthew P Jones
writes

Addressing a number of other points -

1 It is not just Chiltern trains that get held up by other operators
trains, there are many occasions a train is held at Harrow to allow a
Chiltern through delaying the Met train. Only last Friday a Met train
at Amersham was "wedged" (well OK I exaggerate a bit!) because the
fast Chiltern service was 20 minutes late


My understanding is that Chiltern trains must enter the LU controlled
sections in a specified 'time slot' and if they miss this slot then they
follow on behind a Met train if that train is ready to enter the
section.

2 If you reduce the stopping trains south of Amersham, this will
effect passengers for Chesham.


I never use the Chesham service so can't comment.

3 The gates at Amersham are more often than not manned at peak times
A.M. and P.M. and Saturday A.M. as well


Rarely seen the gates manned peak PM times at Amersham.

4 There is also quite a lot of people who use Chiltern to get to and
from Harrow, altering the stopping pattern would cause these people
great inconvenience


I agree.

5 If the Croxley Link ever happens, would Chiltern not wish to get
some revenue from it? Aylesbury / Watford service could be a money
spinner


I hope the link is built, I also hope the line to MK is re-opened.

6 If the West Hampstead interchange is built - something Chiltern are
keen on - then this will only allow more LUL passengers onto Chiltern
trains.


7 Chiltern's service to Aylesbury is not a main line. It used to be,
but the long history of the line has made for a complex arrangement of
two companies proving a service to all stations and I always thought
that a ticket for a journey of say 3 miles was just as valid as a
ticket for a journey of 30 miles. If Aylesbury passengers don't like
LUL travellers, why not catch a train via High Wycombe and avoid them
all together, but that would be inconvenient just as not getting on a
Chiltern train would be at LUL stations.

Taking the train from HW means paying a lot more money....
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Bean" wrote in message
. ..
If there were fewer Chiltern services from Amersham/Chesham to
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then London Underground would have to run more
trains,
which would just slow the Chiltern Trains. (I am assuming that peak hour
trains every 30 minutes would be unacceptable?)

Considering London Underground's track-record (?!) surely it would be
better
to hand over this branch to Chiltern and allow them to run trains
according
to their timetable, some could be all-stoppers and some express etc.

I entirely agree, I was (once) quite looking forward to Crossrail. If CRCL
had sole operation of the fast lines north of Harrow-on-the-Hill, with LUL
concentrating on the Uxbridge and Watford branches, then the whole service
could be run in a more professional and satisfactory manner, IMHO!

Even better to hand over *all* the services on the line via Harrow
(including the Watford services) to Chiltern Railways and leave LUL to do
what it does best: short-distance high-intensity services rather than long
distance services. I'm amazed that people choose to travel all the way from
Amersham to London in a clapped-out LUL train rather than a fast,
comfortable DMU, for the dubious advantage of not changing at Marylebone /
Baker Street.

The thought of Crossrail, in the form that it has been proposed, is
horrendous: yet another railway line irreparably spoiled by the erection of
ugly OHLE gantries; the probable closure of Marylebone after it's had all
that money invested in modernising it - the exchange of a light and airy
terminus station in London for either Paddington (very out-of-the-way for
passengers coming from central London) or else cramped Underground-style
stations closer into Central London. The Crossrail money would be much
better spent upgrading the line north of Aylesbury to provide a service to
Milton Keynes, feeding into a reopened Oxford-MK line. With all services
being DMU or 3rd-rail EMU rather than OHLE EMU. If only the people that I
have to share this planet with weren't too stupid to realise that you don't
touch the live rail, it wouldn't be banned on H&S grounds.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...

7 Chiltern's service to Aylesbury is not a main line. It used to be,
but the long history of the line has made for a complex arrangement of
two companies proving a service to all stations and I always thought
that a ticket for a journey of say 3 miles was just as valid as a
ticket for a journey of 30 miles. If Aylesbury passengers don't like
LUL travellers, why not catch a train via High Wycombe and avoid them
all together, but that would be inconvenient just as not getting on a
Chiltern train would be at LUL stations.

Taking the train from HW means paying a lot more money....

No it doesn't. Any ticket from Aylesbury to London is valid via either
Amersham or High Wycombe.

Peter Smyth

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Peter Smyth
writes

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...

7 Chiltern's service to Aylesbury is not a main line. It used to be,
but the long history of the line has made for a complex arrangement of
two companies proving a service to all stations and I always thought
that a ticket for a journey of say 3 miles was just as valid as a
ticket for a journey of 30 miles. If Aylesbury passengers don't like
LUL travellers, why not catch a train via High Wycombe and avoid them
all together, but that would be inconvenient just as not getting on a
Chiltern train would be at LUL stations.

Taking the train from HW means paying a lot more money....

No it doesn't. Any ticket from Aylesbury to London is valid via either
Amersham or High Wycombe.

Peter Smyth


That's a ticket from Aylesbury. If I buy a return ticket at Amersham
into London I won't be able to get through the gates at High Wycombe.
I'm talking about Amersham - not Aylesbury.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In reply to news post, which Martin Underwood wrote on
Sun, 22 Feb 2004 -
distance services. I'm amazed that people choose to travel all the way from
Amersham to London in a clapped-out LUL train rather than a fast,
comfortable DMU, for the dubious advantage of not changing at Marylebone /
Baker Street.


One of the advantages of the Met at the moment is that you will get a
seat in the mornings, and with Marylebone tube closed in the mornings
getting to Baker Street for onward connections could be quicker than
the long walk along the Marylebone platforms and then the walk to Baker
Street, although hundreds of people seem to do this. Also, although the
ride of the Chiltern trains is better, there is more leg room on the Met
trains, the Chiltern's can be very cramped and the newer seats are not
as comfortable.



--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com...

The thought of Crossrail, in the form that it has been proposed, is
horrendous: yet another railway line irreparably spoiled by the erection
of
ugly OHLE gantries; the probable closure of Marylebone after it's had all
that money invested in modernising it - the exchange of a light and airy
terminus station in London for either Paddington (very out-of-the-way for
passengers coming from central London) or else cramped Underground-style
stations closer into Central London.


Crossrail's changed a lot since it was proposed to take over the Aylesbury
line. Now it will be less like Thameslink and more like an RER, focusing on
services across London - just an express tube really.

It's planned to run from Heathrow and Kingston in the west to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet in the east - it shouldn't affect Marylebone at all.

Jonn

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Joe
writes

Actually many other TOCs like Virgin have done it in the past, and still
do
it. Trains will be announced as 'Not stopping'

OK, so if it's non stopping how will the people get off? You could hold
people at the barriers but if the gate line isn't manned then it won't
happen.

I've not seen the gate line manned at Amersham expect for the AM peak.

What about people already on the platform?

Not really workable is it?

What happens at Euston is that Inter-cities are not advetised as stopping at
Watford Junc. and people with watfor tickets are not allowed past the
barrier. It's advertised at Watford for n/b passengers - to pick up only.

Michael

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , michael
hopkins writes

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Joe
writes

Actually many other TOCs like Virgin have done it in the past, and still
do
it. Trains will be announced as 'Not stopping'

OK, so if it's non stopping how will the people get off? You could hold
people at the barriers but if the gate line isn't manned then it won't
happen.

I've not seen the gate line manned at Amersham expect for the AM peak.

What about people already on the platform?

Not really workable is it?

What happens at Euston is that Inter-cities are not advetised as stopping at
Watford Junc. and people with watfor tickets are not allowed past the
barrier. It's advertised at Watford for n/b passengers - to pick up only.

Michael


That's at Euston for Watford passengers. That's a main line. We're
talking about Amersham here and regular travellers.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

Joe ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Does anyone agree with me that Chiltern Services should be made 'Pick
Up Only' on services to Aylesbury and 'Drop Off Only' on services to
London. I am tired of people who are crowding up services on Chiltern
because they don't want to travel with LU.

Oh, thanks.

That'll cut our train frequency down even further. Especially when the
tubes are shagged - as they frequently are.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

Andrew P Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

No it doesn't. Any ticket from Aylesbury to London is valid via either
Amersham or High Wycombe.

That's a ticket from Aylesbury. If I buy a return ticket at Amersham
into London I won't be able to get through the gates at High Wycombe.
I'm talking about Amersham - not Aylesbury.

Ah, but your Amersham-London nice cheap tube ticket would not entitle you
to use the Chiltern...

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Adrian
writes
Andrew P Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

No it doesn't. Any ticket from Aylesbury to London is valid via either
Amersham or High Wycombe.

That's a ticket from Aylesbury. If I buy a return ticket at Amersham
into London I won't be able to get through the gates at High Wycombe.
I'm talking about Amersham - not Aylesbury.

Ah, but your Amersham-London nice cheap tube ticket would not entitle you
to use the Chiltern...

Wrong. A ticket purchased at Amersham into Zone 1 allows me to use Met
or Chiltern services assuming the ticket is valid for travel at that
time of day.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

Andrew P Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Ah, but your Amersham-London nice cheap tube ticket would not entitle
you to use the Chiltern...

Wrong. A ticket purchased at Amersham into Zone 1 allows me to use Met
or Chiltern services assuming the ticket is valid for travel at that
time of day.

It does now.

Give the OP half a chance, though...

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Adrian
writes
Andrew P Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Ah, but your Amersham-London nice cheap tube ticket would not entitle
you to use the Chiltern...

Wrong. A ticket purchased at Amersham into Zone 1 allows me to use Met
or Chiltern services assuming the ticket is valid for travel at that
time of day.

It does now.

Give the OP half a chance, though...

It always has since I have been using that line. Or at least I have been
using it as such.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:14:28 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


The thought of Crossrail, in the form that it has been proposed, is
horrendous: yet another railway line irreparably spoiled by the erection of
ugly OHLE gantries; the probable closure of Marylebone after it's had all
that money invested in modernising it - the exchange of a light and airy
terminus station in London for either Paddington (very out-of-the-way for
passengers coming from central London) or else cramped Underground-style
stations closer into Central London.

Who is proposing closing Marylebone?

I suspect the central London stations will be more JLE that
"traditional" sized tube stations.

The Crossrail money would be much
better spent upgrading the line north of Aylesbury to provide a service to
Milton Keynes, feeding into a reopened Oxford-MK line.

But that wouldn't help people cross central London.

With all services
being DMU or 3rd-rail EMU rather than OHLE EMU. If only the people that I
have to share this planet with weren't too stupid to realise that you don't
touch the live rail, it wouldn't be banned on H&S grounds.

It's not. /Unprotected/ third rail is.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Does anyone agree with me that Chiltern Services should be made 'Pick Up
Only' on services to Aylesbury and 'Drop Off Only' on services to London.
I
am tired of people who are crowding up services on Chiltern because they
don't want to travel with LU.

No. I don't support the concept of "pick up only" and "set down only" - a
train should be obliged to carry anyone who wants to travel on it as long as
they have a valid ticket for the journey, and tickets should be valid for
all TOCs - none of this "valid only on Thames Trains and not on First Great
Western" lark. Why should passengers be forced to use certain trains in
preference to others?

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:14:28 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


The thought of Crossrail, in the form that it has been proposed, is
horrendous: yet another railway line irreparably spoiled by the erection
of
ugly OHLE gantries; the probable closure of Marylebone after it's had all
that money invested in modernising it - the exchange of a light and airy
terminus station in London for either Paddington (very out-of-the-way for
passengers coming from central London) or else cramped Underground-style
stations closer into Central London.

Who is proposing closing Marylebone?

I thought the plans were originally for services on the High Wycombe line to
use Paddington instead of Marylebone and for serices on the Aylesbury line
to use Baker Street and further stations in central London instead of
Marylebone.

With all services
being DMU or 3rd-rail EMU rather than OHLE EMU. If only the people that I
have to share this planet with weren't too stupid to realise that you
don't
touch the live rail, it wouldn't be banned on H&S grounds.

It's not. /Unprotected/ third rail is.

All right, unprotected third rail - of the sort used by all the services out
of Waterloo, Victoria and Charing Cross. I agree that a protected rail, as
is used on the Docklands Light Railway, would probably be sufficiently
idiot-proof to be immune to Darwin Award wannabees!

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:14:28 GMT, "Martin Underwood"

wrote:


The thought of Crossrail, in the form that it has been proposed, is
horrendous: yet another railway line irreparably spoiled by the
erection of
ugly OHLE gantries; the probable closure of Marylebone after it's
had all
that money invested in modernising it - the exchange of a light and
airy
terminus station in London for either Paddington (very
out-of-the-way for
passengers coming from central London) or else cramped
Underground-style
stations closer into Central London.

Who is proposing closing Marylebone?

I suspect the central London stations will be more JLE that
"traditional" sized tube stations.

The Crossrail money would be much
better spent upgrading the line north of Aylesbury to provide a
service to
Milton Keynes, feeding into a reopened Oxford-MK line.

But that wouldn't help people cross central London.

With all services
being DMU or 3rd-rail EMU rather than OHLE EMU. If only the people
that I
have to share this planet with weren't too stupid to realise that
you don't
touch the live rail, it wouldn't be banned on H&S grounds.

It's not. /Unprotected/ third rail is.


Unless its an extension to an existing system.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:48:34 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

and tickets should be valid for
all TOCs - none of this "valid only on Thames Trains and not on First Great
Western" lark. Why should passengers be forced to use certain trains in
preference to others?

OTOH why should passengers have to pay full price for an
interavailable ticket, if a company is willing to offer a specific
ticket which it can afford to sell at a lower price as it gets more of
the revenue from it? I'm often quite happy to get a Hull Trains* only
ticket and save the money on an GNER/Arriva/MML/[& more contrived
trips] interavailable ticket.

I met the then-MD of WAGN some years ago, who said they had introduced
a WAGN only (ie not GNER) season ticket from Peterborough to London,
at a substantial reduction in price. Some people objected that the
WAGN season tickets was less flexible than under BR (even though the
"any permitted" still existed as before!), but many passengers were
willing to save a few hundred quid and bought them.

There is also the issue of stopping short-distance passengers
cluttering up inter-city trains.

*Yes, I know HT isn't a TOC.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Does anyone agree with me that Chiltern Services should be made 'Pick Up
Only' on services to Aylesbury and 'Drop Off Only' on services to London. I
am tired of people who are crowding up services on Chiltern because they
don't want to travel with LU.

Didn't British Rail use to do that?
They couldn't do it unless they put a physical barrier that let people
off but not on. i.e gates that only opreate one way.
Annoucements are pointless as people have so little faith in L.U.
annocuments they are ignored.
The simple soloution is to make the Met line so nice to use. So great.
So reliable and comfortable that people will actually use that rather
than the Chiltern line. To be honest if your going into London from
Harrow which would you rather have. Creaky old trains that are
gantureed to stop at least one station and no doubt stop in between
stations for no apparent reason. Then be dumped at Wembley while the
new driver for the train strolls down the platform to the cab?
Or do you go in air-condtioned comfort non-stop?

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that Chiltern trains must enter the LU controlled
sections in a specified 'time slot' and if they miss this slot then they
follow on behind a Met train if that train is ready to enter the
section.

And right on cue ....

Tonight (Monday) the 19:15 Marylebone to Aylesbury (first stop Great
Missenden) departed approx 30 secs late from Marylebone (due to the last
minute substitution of a Class 168 from an adjacent platform, as the
country-end 165 of a pair was defective, trapping in the set to form the
service). Arrived H-on-H virtually on time, crawled through the platform and
then staggered all the way to Amersham. Why? Because the buggers in Harrow
box had let out an all-stations Amersham stopper in front of it! Again.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In article , Jack Taylor
writes

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that Chiltern trains must enter the LU controlled
sections in a specified 'time slot' and if they miss this slot then they
follow on behind a Met train if that train is ready to enter the
section.

And right on cue ....

Tonight (Monday) the 19:15 Marylebone to Aylesbury (first stop Great
Missenden) departed approx 30 secs late from Marylebone (due to the last
minute substitution of a Class 168 from an adjacent platform, as the
country-end 165 of a pair was defective, trapping in the set to form the
service). Arrived H-on-H virtually on time, crawled through the platform and
then staggered all the way to Amersham. Why? Because the buggers in Harrow
box had let out an all-stations Amersham stopper in front of it! Again.


Then a complaint should be made to LU who signal the Harrow to Amersham
section assuming that the Chiltern was actually on time.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

Andrew P Smith typed


Tonight (Monday) the 19:15 Marylebone to Aylesbury (first stop Great
Missenden) departed approx 30 secs late from Marylebone (due to the last
minute substitution of a Class 168 from an adjacent platform, as the
country-end 165 of a pair was defective, trapping in the set to form the
service). Arrived H-on-H virtually on time, crawled through the
platform and
^^^^^^^^^
then staggered all the way to Amersham. Why? Because the buggers in Harrow
box had let out an all-stations Amersham stopper in front of it! Again.


Then a complaint should be made to LU who signal the Harrow to Amersham
section assuming that the Chiltern was actually on time.
^^^^^^^^

Methinks it was a _little_ late...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...

Methinks it was a _little_ late...

19:27 at Harrow by my phone and watch, so minimal. Harrow box allowed it a
clear run into the platform, so obviously knew that it was imminently
arriving. I suspect that the slightly late-running Amersham (which I was on
from Liverpool Street), which was checked all the way to GPS, was given
priority. The CRCL service was only 3 late at Aylesbury (booked 20:12,
actual 20:15), after the additional delay caused by the crawl along the Met,
so must have been as near as damn-it to booked time at Harrow. IMO another
example of petty-minded, rather than practical, regulation.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

In reply to news post, which Jack Taylor wrote on
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 -

Tonight (Monday) the 19:15 Marylebone to Aylesbury (first stop Great
Missenden) departed approx 30 secs late from Marylebone (due to the last
minute substitution of a Class 168 from an adjacent platform, as the
country-end 165 of a pair was defective, trapping in the set to form the
service). Arrived H-on-H virtually on time, crawled through the platform and
then staggered all the way to Amersham. Why? Because the buggers in Harrow
box had let out an all-stations Amersham stopper in front of it! Again.


Chiltern trains non stopping at Harrow north bound will always have to
go through at slow speed as there is a trip cock tester signal at the
end of the platform. Even if the signal is green, the train has to slow
for the trip cock to be tested. You can see a white light by the signal
which comes on as a train approaches, if the light goes out then the
train can proceed, the light only goes out when the train is pretty near
the signal, hence the requirement I guess for slow speed.
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote:

Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of the revenue goes to Chiltern,
from the LUL stations only a proportion (fixed by the annual passenger
survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets. Therefore it is in their interests
to fill the train with non-LUL passengers at peak times.

Rubbish. Assuming that an annual passenger survey is indeed used, then it
will apportion the revenue from Amersham (and south thereof) between
Chiltern and LUL on the basis of how many passengers use each operators'
trains.

So, while Chiltern only pocket a proportion of the fares paid by passengers
using *their* trains from the shared stations, they *also* pocket a
proportion of the fares paid by passengers using *LUL* trains from those
stations. That proportion is set so that it is equivalent to Chiltern
getting 100% of the fares from passengers using their trains, but 0% of the
revenue from those using LUL trains - using the "swings and roundabouts"
principle.

So, it is *not* necessarily in Chiltern's interests to fill their trains
with "non-LUL" passengers.



--
MetroGnome
~~~~~~~~~~

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"MetroGnome" wrote in message
news:qL__b.19231$ft.5368@newsfe1-win...
"Jack Taylor" wrote:

Bear in mind that north of Amersham 100% of the revenue goes to
Chiltern,
from the LUL stations only a proportion (fixed by the annual passenger
survey) goes into Chiltern's pockets. Therefore it is in their interests
to fill the train with non-LUL passengers at peak times.

Rubbish.

Try reading the follow-ups before going into an apoplectic rant.

Chiltern Services Between Amersham & Harrow
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote:

Try reading the follow-ups before going into an apoplectic rant.

I read all the follow-ups (at least, all that appeared on my server) before
replying.

I'm aware of the suggestion that there *might* not be a survey (with some
sort of revenue/track access bartering agreement being used instead) - but
as far as I can see, this wasn't confirmed. Hence, I began my comments with
the phrase "Assuming that an annual passenger survey is indeed used" -
clearly showing that the following comments only applied if a survey *was*
used.

I don't consider that pointing out the flaws in your logic constitutes a
rant.




--
MetroGnome
~~~~~~~~~~