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.

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

"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.

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote

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.

The Met was electrified to Rickmansworth in 1925, the year the Watford
branch was opened. In view of the 2-track bottleneck between Harrow and
Watford South Junction, Rickmansworth was the first convenient place for
traction changes on Aylesbury trains to take place.

Quadrupling between Harrow and Watford South Junction was proposed in the
1935 London Transport New Works Plan, but this work, and electrification to
Chesham and Amersham did not begin until 1959.

So why was Amersham chosen as the limit of electrification in 1959? Good
cases could presumably have been made for electrifying through to Aylesbury,
with all remaining Great Central services being diverted via the Joint Line,
Ashendon and Grendon Underwood Junctions, or for handing the new fast lines
from Harrow South Junction to Watford South Junction, and on to Amersham
over to BR, not electrifying them, and serving all stations Rickmansworth to
Chesham and Aylesbury with dmus to Marylebone.

Peter

with all remaining Great Central services being diverted via the Joint
Line,
Ashendon and Grendon Underwood Junctions, or for handing the new fast
lines
from Harrow South Junction to Watford South Junction, and on to Amersham
over to BR, not electrifying them, and serving all stations Rickmansworth
to
Chesham and Aylesbury with dmus to Marylebone.

Peter


why was the joint line closed? would there of been a case to keep it open?
or what about north of aylesbury why was this closed? it would of been a
decent route to keep as a fast line to london as it was mostly straight.
also a hell of a lot of housing has gone up in the area so it may of been
stupid to close it.

"Huge" wrote

why was the joint line closed? would there of been a case to keep it
open?
or what about north of aylesbury why was this closed? it would of been a
decent route to keep as a fast line to london as it was mostly straight.
also a hell of a lot of housing has gone up in the area so it may of been
stupid to close it.

The Joint Line (Northolt Junction to Ashendon Junction) is still open as
part of Chiltern's Birmingham route. It is interesting that Chiltern seem to
have taken to referring to their two routes as the Met line (via Amersham)
and the Joint line (via High Wycombe).

IIRC the Ashendon Junction to Grendon Underwood link did outlast the closure
of the Great Central north of Calvert, though was closed between Ashendon
and Akeman Street in the late 1960s after a derailment damaged track at
Ashendon Junction. Akeman Street to Grendon Underwood lasted much longer, to
serve a fertiliser depot.

The closure of the Great Central north of Aylesbury has been discussed at
length, here and elsewhere, but when it closed the remaining stations
between Aylesbury and Rugby had very little traffic, while for destinations
Rugby northwards other routes (WCML and MML) offered much faster journeys.

Housing development which has taken place in recent years north of Princes
Risborough and Aylesbury was not envisaged in the 1960s. The railway has
responded by reopening Haddenham station, increasing service on the Chiltern
Line (north of Princes Risborough there are now 3 trains an hour, while in
the late 1960s it was about 7 trains a day). It looks very likely that a
passenger service will run to a new station a couple of miles north of
Aylesbury to serve a new housing development, and it is not unlikely that
Aylesbury - Calvert - Milton Keynes will be reopened, serving proposed new
housing at Quainton and Winslow, as well as at Aylesbury and Milton Keynes.

Peter