Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

In article ,
(Matt Wheeler) wrote:

Chiltern appear to have a finite resource of rolling stock (as does
any train company), but have increasing passenger numbers.

Actually, Chiltern have additional stock under construction at
Bombardier in Derby.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Matt Wheeler) wrote:

Chiltern appear to have a finite resource of rolling stock (as does
any train company), but have increasing passenger numbers.

Actually, Chiltern have additional stock under construction at
Bombardier in Derby.


True, but unless the order was changes, its 6 intermediate carriages
to strengthen existing 168's rather than more actual trains. These
will therefore be concentrated on the Birmingham services and are
unlikely to allow displacement of stock off Birmingham runs to shorter
ones.

Maybe if First Great Western find they don't need some of their 165s
or 166s, and Chiltern can afford (or are allowed) to take on the
lease, they could use these to strengthen other services, but. evem
woth the mew Wembley depot, I can't imagine there is much spare depot
capacity.

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

MIG wrote:
Amersham must be one of the few stations to receive a
relatively poor peak service compared to off peak.

You're right - the only others I can think of off the top of my head
are Rickmansworth and Cambridge.

Lewisham to Charing Cross (and in the non-peak direction, no service at
all to/from Charing Cross on Dartford lines).

But a very easy change at London Bridge.

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

Matt Wheeler wrote:
"www.waspies.net" wrote in message
...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, asdf wrote:

Some have suggested that Chiltern should be allowed to charge a
premium to Met passengers. This perhaps could be achieved by
the Oyster system. If they were allowed to do that, perhaps
other national rail companies would be more in favour of Oyster
[...]
It would also be the end of interavailable ticketing, which
wouldn't be a good thing for the passenger.
Well, not entirely. Some other railway systems seem to manage to
define a base tariff (e.g for a season ticket), which can also be
used on premium trains by purchasing a one-off supplement per use.

I'm not sure how you'd tell an Oyster reader what your wishes were
in this regard, though.
I wonder if this went through and Chiltern reducing their serving of
TFL LU stations if there would still be priority given to Chiltern
trains on the track, if TFL LU want to make things difficult they
can and delay chiltern affecting their performance ratings.

Just a thought


Certainly a good point..... Do Chiltern have priority all "day" or is
it just during the peak hours ?

I realise it'll never happen, but one thing that I, and others, have
put forward before is that what is currently the Met line from
Rickmansworth, northwards be handed over to Network Rail & Chiltern,
so that they can run all services along that corridor, allowing the
Met line to concentrate their resources on the Watford line services.
Depending on capacity, Chiltern may have to stop some services at Moor
Park and, possibly, an hourly or half hourly Rickmansworth to Watford
service, to allow interchange between the two services.
This "sale" but TFL, would then give them more of the money they need
to link the Met into Watford Junction.

Why was it that Amersham ended up as the terminus in the first place? I
know it's to do with the electrification scheme but I can't remember why
it didn't just run to Watford, leaving Rickmansworth northwards as
BR/Chiltern.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Matt Wheeler) wrote:

Chiltern appear to have a finite resource of rolling stock (as does
any train company), but have increasing passenger numbers.

Actually, Chiltern have additional stock under construction at
Bombardier in Derby.

Sorry, Colin - all the stock that was on order has now been delivered (most
recently six intermediate motors to make the two-car 168s up to four cars).

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

In article ,
(Jack Taylor) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Matt Wheeler) wrote:

Chiltern appear to have a finite resource of rolling stock (as does
any train company), but have increasing passenger numbers.

Actually, Chiltern have additional stock under construction at
Bombardier in Derby.

Sorry, Colin - all the stock that was on order has now been delivered
(most recently six intermediate motors to make the two-car 168s up to
four cars).

Not according to this month's Modern Railways.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Jack Taylor) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

Actually, Chiltern have additional stock under construction at
Bombardier in Derby.

Sorry, Colin - all the stock that was on order has now been delivered
(most recently six intermediate motors to make the two-car 168s up to
four cars).

Not according to this month's Modern Railways.

I'm sure that the "six Turbostar cars" referred to on page 34 are the six
that have just been delivered. They were completed three months ago and
delivered to the customer in the last month, the sets being reformed with
them last week. Other than a speculative OJEU notice for the provision of
new stock (anticipating transfer of the Central Trains south of Birmingham
services) there is nothing outstanding AFAIK, all ordered Turbostars are now
in their (currently) proposed formations:

Four-car: 168 001-005/106/107/215-217
Three-car: 168 108-113/214/218/219

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a reduction
of 32% on the Met Main. Still, presumably they'll need all that extra
standing space for those displaced off of Chiltern? The good news is
they'll have air con (in the driver's cab only mind you...).

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

wrote:
I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a reduction
of 32% on the Met Main.

This is really rather silly, given that the Met is more like Merseyrail
(a suburban rail service that happens to have underground sections)
than LUL proper, and has different loadings and journey lengths.

It would make much more sense to specify the stock with tracked seating
and no equipment under the seats so it can be adapted for the relevant
routes.

Still, presumably they'll need all that extra
standing space for those displaced off of Chiltern? The good news is
they'll have air con (in the driver's cab only mind you...).

That *is* ridiculous. Given that the subsurface lines do not suffer
the same issues as far as tunnel ventilation goes as the tubes do, I
was expecting full aircon throughout.

Neil

Reduction in Chiltern Services and Funding of Shared Met Line
 

Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:
I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a reduction
of 32% on the Met Main.

This is really rather silly, given that the Met is more like Merseyrail
(a suburban rail service that happens to have underground sections)
than LUL proper, and has different loadings and journey lengths.

It would make much more sense to specify the stock with tracked seating
and no equipment under the seats so it can be adapted for the relevant
routes.

Still, presumably they'll need all that extra
standing space for those displaced off of Chiltern? The good news is
they'll have air con (in the driver's cab only mind you...).

That *is* ridiculous. Given that the subsurface lines do not suffer
the same issues as far as tunnel ventilation goes as the tubes do, I
was expecting full aircon throughout.

Unless something's changed recently, S stock will have air con throughout:

"The sub-surface lines will receive 190 air-conditioned trains in the
first 12 years of the contract, replacing and enlarging existing fleets
on the Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City and District lines. The
new sub-surface line trains will feature inter-connecting gangways,
allowing passengers to walk through the entire train. They will be the
same design, saving on maintenance and parts, and together with new
signalling, will achieve vastly improved journey times. The first new
train will enter service on the Metropolitan line in 2009 with others
following at the rate of one every 10 days."
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1079446073890

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London