In message , at 09:34:18 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:44:06 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:40:15 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:
This was the furthest outpost of the Central Line, served by 59/60
stock, even though it's always been a country branch line.

Given the distances people commute now, I can't help wondering if LU had
upgraded the line and given it a half decent , possibly even through service
instead of treating it like some part time afterthought, there might by now
be considerably more passengers on it than there were back when it
was part of
LU. Ongar is a reasonably sized small town which if south of london on a
railway would be prime commuter belt territory.

Ongar's not as big as you think, and the rail journey was very slow with

~6000 people according to wikipedia, about the same as little chalfont on
the Met.

The thing is, Little Chalfont isn't the only railhead on that stretch of
the Met.

almost no additional catchment until Epping. It's far easier to drive to
Brentwood station.

Yes, the journey was slow because the trains were slow, infrequent and the
journey involved a change. If it had a similar service level to Epping however
I suspect it might be a different story. I doubt the traffic around Brentwood
is much fun and I suspect the parking at the station isn't free either assuming
there are any free spaces.

It wouldn't be free at Ongar, either (it's £4.30 at Little Chalfont), if
it had the pipedream service you advocate.

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:48:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
It wouldn't be free at Ongar, either (it's £4.30 at Little Chalfont), if
it had the pipedream service you advocate.

Obviously its a pipedream since its never going to happen now. No harm in
playing what-ifs though. Improved train services tend to drive greater
passenger numbers. Removing a train service from a town even if it is only
6K people is a backwards step and not something a public body should have
done IMO.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:48:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
It wouldn't be free at Ongar, either (it's ï½£4.30 at Little Chalfont), if
it had the pipedream service you advocate.

Obviously its a pipedream since its never going to happen now. No harm in
playing what-ifs though. Improved train services tend to drive greater
passenger numbers. Removing a train service from a town even if it is only
6K people is a backwards step and not something a public body should have
done IMO.

Thanks to the Green Belt, the small number of people in the catchment area
wasn't going to grow, and there are better ways to commute from the wider
area.

The line would have needed serious investment in order to run more
frequent, full length, direct London trains. Would you, as a London
taxpayer, wanted to have paid for more Essex residents to have heavily
subsidised travel into the already packed core Central line? Wouldn't your
generous offer of a large personal donation be better spent increasing the
central area capacity?

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:06:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The line would have needed serious investment in order to run more
frequent, full length, direct London trains. Would you, as a London
taxpayer, wanted to have paid for more Essex residents to have heavily
subsidised travel into the already packed core Central line? Wouldn't your
generous offer of a large personal donation be better spent increasing the
central area capacity?

Given there's currently a very expensive and fairly pointless scheme to link
the Met to watford junction I don't think improving Ongar would have been
completely beyond the pale especially if Essex CC had coughed up some dough.
I suspect a large number of the outer areas of the tube dont pay their way
and if you just concentrated on core services you'd end up with something like
the Paris metro - great service in the centre, not so much in the suburbs.

--
Spud

On 09.06.17 10:45, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:44:06 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:40:15 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:
This was the furthest outpost of the Central Line, served by 59/60
stock, even though it's always been a country branch line.

Given the distances people commute now, I can't help wondering if LU had
upgraded the line and given it a half decent , possibly even through service
instead of treating it like some part time afterthought, there might by now
be considerably more passengers on it than there were back when it was part of
LU. Ongar is a reasonably sized small town which if south of london on a
railway would be prime commuter belt territory.

Ongar's not as big as you think, and the rail journey was very slow with

~6000 people according to wikipedia, about the same as little chalfont on
the Met.

almost no additional catchment until Epping. It's far easier to drive to
Brentwood station.

Yes, the journey was slow because the trains were slow, infrequent and the
journey involved a change. If it had a similar service level to Epping however
I suspect it might be a different story. I doubt the traffic around Brentwood
is much fun and I suspect the parking at the station isn't free either assuming
there are any free spaces.


I think the Green Belt put paid to that branch, just as it killed off other
remote Tube expansion plans.


Like what?

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:53:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:06:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The line would have needed serious investment in order to run more
frequent, full length, direct London trains. Would you, as a London
taxpayer, wanted to have paid for more Essex residents to have heavily
subsidised travel into the already packed core Central line? Wouldn't your
generous offer of a large personal donation be better spent increasing the
central area capacity?

Given there's currently a very expensive and fairly pointless scheme to link
the Met to watford junction I don't think improving Ongar would have been
completely beyond the pale especially if Essex CC had coughed up some dough.
I suspect a large number of the outer areas of the tube dont pay their way
and if you just concentrated on core services you'd end up with something like
the Paris metro - great service in the centre, not so much in the suburbs.

The LU policy is now to concentrate on the core area, and new
extensions are likely only to be in urban areas within London, not
rural branches. Haven't you noticed that the Watford Met extension has
stalled?

In message , at 10:50:26 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:

It wouldn't be free at Ongar, either (it's £4.30 at Little Chalfont), if
it had the pipedream service you advocate.

Obviously its a pipedream since its never going to happen now. No harm in
playing what-ifs though. Improved train services tend to drive greater
passenger numbers. Removing a train service from a town even if it is only
6K people is a backwards step and not something a public body should have
done IMO.

Even if the service is hopelessly uneconomic and requiring a huge
subsidy?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:14:14 +0100, "
wrote:

On 09.06.17 10:45, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:44:06 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:40:15 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:
This was the furthest outpost of the Central Line, served by 59/60
stock, even though it's always been a country branch line.

Given the distances people commute now, I can't help wondering if LU had
upgraded the line and given it a half decent , possibly even through service
instead of treating it like some part time afterthought, there might by now
be considerably more passengers on it than there were back when it was part of
LU. Ongar is a reasonably sized small town which if south of london on a
railway would be prime commuter belt territory.

Ongar's not as big as you think, and the rail journey was very slow with

~6000 people according to wikipedia, about the same as little chalfont on
the Met.

almost no additional catchment until Epping. It's far easier to drive to
Brentwood station.

Yes, the journey was slow because the trains were slow, infrequent and the
journey involved a change. If it had a similar service level to Epping however
I suspect it might be a different story. I doubt the traffic around Brentwood
is much fun and I suspect the parking at the station isn't free either assuming
there are any free spaces.


I think the Green Belt put paid to that branch, just as it killed off other
remote Tube expansion plans.


Like what?

Central Line to Denham; Northern Line to Bushey Heath and Alexandra
Palace; Met Line to Quainton Road, Brill and Verney Junction.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:15:56 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:53:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Given there's currently a very expensive and fairly pointless scheme to link
the Met to watford junction I don't think improving Ongar would have been
completely beyond the pale especially if Essex CC had coughed up some dough.
I suspect a large number of the outer areas of the tube dont pay their way
and if you just concentrated on core services you'd end up with something like
the Paris metro - great service in the centre, not so much in the suburbs.

The LU policy is now to concentrate on the core area, and new
extensions are likely only to be in urban areas within London, not
rural branches. Haven't you noticed that the Watford Met extension has
stalled?

I not up to date on it but I can't say I'm surprised. I can't see any viable
case for it. No one travelling into central london from watford junction is
going go around the houses on the met if they can get the Overground direct
and I can't imagine there's a huge demand for commuters to/from the western
area of the met to there.

--
Spud

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:28:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:26 on Fri, 9 Jun
2017, d remarked:

It wouldn't be free at Ongar, either (it's £4.30 at Little Chalfont), if
it had the pipedream service you advocate.

Obviously its a pipedream since its never going to happen now. No harm in
playing what-ifs though. Improved train services tend to drive greater
passenger numbers. Removing a train service from a town even if it is only
6K people is a backwards step and not something a public body should have
done IMO.

Even if the service is hopelessly uneconomic and requiring a huge
subsidy?

You mean like Mill Hill East was on the northern line for years until new
estates were built there?

--
Spud