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

"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?

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

"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
~~~~~~~~~~

"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.

"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
~~~~~~~~~~