Is there any logic or consistent pattern to the way Chiltern
Railways serves the London suburban stations on the route
to High Wycombe? Marylebone Station feeds a minimal
suburban network and a straightforward, all-station-stopping
train once an hour would get the job done. Chiltern seems not
to agree.

Their method is to run trains to destinations way outside London
and very occasionally to stop a train at one suburban station.
That might be acceptable to someone travelling to and from
Central London but is quite useless for someone wishing to go
from, say, South Ruislip to Wembley.

Chiltern Railways is a commercially savvy TOC so I assume there
is some logic to their system.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Is there any logic or consistent pattern to the way Chiltern
Railways serves the London suburban stations on the route
to High Wycombe? Marylebone Station feeds a minimal
suburban network and a straightforward, all-station-stopping
train once an hour would get the job done. Chiltern seems not
to agree.

Their method is to run trains to destinations way outside London
and very occasionally to stop a train at one suburban station.
That might be acceptable to someone travelling to and from
Central London but is quite useless for someone wishing to go
from, say, South Ruislip to Wembley.

Chiltern Railways is a commercially savvy TOC so I assume there
is some logic to their system.

Chiltern don't want their suburban stations

but in the absence of a sensible process to close them, they run a minimal
service to them

It's not like there isn't an alternative underground station within walking
distance of most of them

tim

On Monday, 9 October 2017 10:43:05 UTC+1, Robin9 wrote:
Is there any logic or consistent pattern to the way Chiltern
Railways serves the London suburban stations on the route
to High Wycombe? Marylebone Station feeds a minimal
suburban network and a straightforward, all-station-stopping
train once an hour would get the job done. Chiltern seems not
to agree.

Their method is to run trains to destinations way outside London
and very occasionally to stop a train at one suburban station.
That might be acceptable to someone travelling to and from
Central London but is quite useless for someone wishing to go
from, say, South Ruislip to Wembley.

Chiltern Railways is a commercially savvy TOC so I assume there
is some logic to their system.

The simple answer is that being "commercially savvy" they know they will earn for more money from passengers travelling beyond Gtr London. Therefore all their effort is concentrated in serving those markets - especially given the investment in the Oxford and Brum services. I suspect Chiltern would not stop at the Ruislips or Sudburys if they could get away with it but the DfT mandate a limited service.

To run an effective and attractive suburban stopping service would require investment in more platform faces and passing loops to allow fast trains to overtake the slows. Not going to happen unless the DfT insist on it and that's not going to happen either. The presumption is almost certainly that people will use the tube and buses for the sort of journey you quoted.

--
Paul C
via Google.

Robin9 wrote:

Is there any logic or consistent pattern to the way Chiltern
Railways serves the London suburban stations on the route
to High Wycombe? Marylebone Station feeds a minimal
suburban network and a straightforward, all-station-stopping
train once an hour would get the job done. Chiltern seems not
to agree.

Their method is to run trains to destinations way outside London
and very occasionally to stop a train at one suburban station.
That might be acceptable to someone travelling to and from
Central London but is quite useless for someone wishing to go
from, say, South Ruislip to Wembley.

Chiltern Railways is a commercially savvy TOC so I assume there
is some logic to their system.

Having all-stops, slow suburban services would eat up another fast path on
a 2-track railway.

Being cynical, I suspect Chiltern deliberately makes those services
unpopular and so little-used. It would rather not run them at all, leaving
more paths for fast, longer distance, higher revenue services. The last
thing it wants is to have to increase the frequencies of its suburban
services because more people were using them. That would decrease its
overall revenues: each of those unprofitable slow stoppers probably
consumes two fast paths, that would generate far more revenue.

I'm surprised the DfT allows Chiltern to get away with such a
negligent attitude. If they agree with and condone Chiltern's
policy, why mandate a suburban service at all?

The irony is that when the line was constructed, passing loops
were created at Wembley Hill (now Wembley Stadium),
Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, but these have all now been
taken out. West Ruislip still provides a passing loop on the Up line
and the South Ruislip arrangement provides a substantial one on
the Down line.