There was some discussion on this group not so long ago about
promoting Sudbury Hill and Sudbury Hill Harrow as interchange
stations.

I was at Sudbury Hill the other day, during the week-and-a-half-long
eastbound platform closure. The posters at the station advised
passengers for central London to travel to South Harrow using a
westbound train then return on an eastbound. This would add approx 7
to 17 mins to the usual journey time. I didn't see any mention at all
of the Chiltern service from Sudbury Hill Harrow to Marylebone.

This seemed to me a bit uninformative - they could have saved some
passengers time by bringing the service to their attention and putting
a list of the Chiltern departure times on the poster.

This contrasts with the situation at Harrow-on-the-Hill during the
weekend Met closures, where passengers for central London are advised
and encouraged to use Chiltern rather than the LU replacement buses.

Barry Salter wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:34:53 +0100, asdf
wrote:


There was some discussion on this group not so long ago about
promoting Sudbury Hill and Sudbury Hill Harrow as interchange
stations.

I was at Sudbury Hill the other day, during the week-and-a-half-long
eastbound platform closure. The posters at the station advised
passengers for central London to travel to South Harrow using a
westbound train then return on an eastbound. This would add approx 7
to 17 mins to the usual journey time. I didn't see any mention at all
of the Chiltern service from Sudbury Hill Harrow to Marylebone.

This seemed to me a bit uninformative - they could have saved some
passengers time by bringing the service to their attention and putting
a list of the Chiltern departure times on the poster.


This would probably be because the Chiltern "service" is all of 13
services a day (weekedays only) with trains from Sudbury Hill Harrow at
06:42, 07:47, 08:28, 09:23, 10:29, 12:04, 13:04, 14:06, 15:04, 16:09,
17:02, 17:08 and 17:58, as opposed to Piccadilly Line trains every 10 to
12 minutes for most of the day.

It may also be because transferring the entire commuter load from the
Picc onto the Chiltern service would not be that practical.
I remember a few winters back when (fairly typical, seasonal) weather
conditions caused the vast majority of the underground network to shut
down. On that occasion I had to get into work in central London so went
for the 06:42 Chiltern train instead. Now at that time in the morning
it is before the main commuter rush, and weather conditions being what
they were I suspect a significant number of commuters had arrange to
work from home or otherwise not travel in that day. Nevertheless I only
just managed to squash onto the train and passengers at subsequent
stations were (justifiably) grumpy about not being able to get onto what
is their usual commuter train.

--
To contact me take a davidhowdon and add a @yahoo.co.uk to the end.

David Howdon wrote:

It may also be because transferring the entire commuter load from
the Picc onto the Chiltern service would not be that practical.

It's impratical mainly because of infrastructure constraints - pathing
over the link line from Neasden South Junction to Northolt Junction is
very tight, with the various stoppers/semis and fast trains from
Stratford and Birmingham all competing for track space. A decent
service can only be had by restoring the through lines at at least one
of the original stations along the stretch.

If the infrastructure were available, running a more intensive stopping
service would only depend on ridership.

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's impratical mainly because of infrastructure constraints - pathing
over the link line from Neasden South Junction to Northolt Junction is
very tight, with the various stoppers/semis and fast trains from
Stratford and Birmingham all competing for track space. A decent
service can only be had by restoring the through lines at at least one
of the original stations along the stretch.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, it isn't just a case of spending money on
restoring the through lines, as it would be at places like Beaconsfield. In
BR days (as at Gerrards Cross) the entire alignment was slewed in places,
meaning that, in addition to the restoration of platform loops, most of the
construction at platform level of Sudbury Hill, Harrow would require
demolition and reconstruction to meet current HSE requirements with regard
to platform widths etc etc. The present costs of such work would be
prohibitive for such a (currently) lightly used station - and accountants
are not renowned for basing their investment on projected figures, which is
why so many far better projects that can be seen to be needed (to anyone
with a basic understanding of railway infrastructure, operation, local
passenger flows etc.) have not been given the go-ahead without the financial
commitment of local and county councils. In almost every case nationally,
where the bean counters have restricted the development of new stations and
routes and have scaled down the expenditure, the coffers have had to be
reopened within a couple of years for infrastructure improvements because
ridership has far exceeded projections and capacity problems have ensued!

It may also be because transferring the entire commuter load from
the Picc onto the Chiltern service would not be that practical.

It's impratical mainly because of infrastructure constraints - pathing
over the link line from Neasden South Junction to Northolt Junction is
very tight, with the various stoppers/semis and fast trains from
Stratford and Birmingham all competing for track space. A decent
service can only be had by restoring the through lines at at least one
of the original stations along the stretch.

If the infrastructure were available, running a more intensive stopping
service would only depend on ridership.

I see, so the reason for the lack of information is that they need to
keep it a secret, lest too many people try to use it!

Jack Taylor wrote:

Absolutely. Unfortunately, it isn't just a case of spending money
on restoring the through lines, as it would be at places like
Beaconsfield. In BR days (as at Gerrards Cross) the entire alignment
was slewed in places, meaning that, in addition to the restoration
of platform loops, most of the construction at platform level of
Sudbury Hill, Harrow would require demolition and reconstruction to
meet current HSE requirements with regard to platform widths etc etc.

Maybe, maybe not - at worst the entire platform surface would need to
be demolished and rebuilt. Considering the poor state of the platform
furniture at Sudbury Hill, Chiltern may simply choose to knock it down
and build a new platform on top of the old, a la Risborough.
Cooperation from TfL (i.e. buses) would be needed in order to ensure
that the expensive works actually had people taking advantage of them.

The present costs of such work would be prohibitive for such a
(currently) lightly used station - and accountants are not renowned
for basing their investment on projected figures, which is why so
many far better projects that can be seen to be needed (to anyone
with a basic understanding of railway infrastructure, operation,
local passenger flows etc.) have not been given the go-ahead without
the financial commitment of local and county councils.

Would such approval from the London Borough of Harrow be difficult to
secure, given the stereotypical dislike of the Underground?

In almost every case nationally, where the bean counters have
restricted the development of new stations and routes and have scaled
down the expenditure, the coffers have had to be reopened within a
couple of years for infrastructure improvements because ridership
has far exceeded projections and capacity problems have ensued!

Indeed. I would think though that rebuilding Sudbury Hill with through
lines could be costed at far more than a 'local' level - the
flexibility improvements to services from the Chiltern routes, with the
subsequent increases in reliability and possibly even income, could
also be considered in favour of approving such a project; TBH though I
know little of such things ;-)

Jack Taylor wrote In almost every case nationally, where the bean counters
have restricted the development of new stations and routes and have scaled
down the expenditure, the coffers have had to be reopened within a couple of
years for infrastructure improvements because ridership has far exceeded
projections and capacity problems have ensued!

Some years ago now the service on this line was run down as a prelude to
closing it. Now look at it. There seems to be a train passing every few
minutes!

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway

asdf wrote:

I see, so the reason for the lack of information is that they need to
keep it a secret, lest too many people try to use it!

Chiltern is the sort of company that wants to do well by their
passengers - if they want to increase ridership at Sudbury Hill, I'm
sure that they want to do it right. That involves spending money.

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe, maybe not - at worst the entire platform surface would need to
be demolished and rebuilt. Considering the poor state of the platform
furniture at Sudbury Hill, Chiltern may simply choose to knock it down
and build a new platform on top of the old, a la Risborough.

I could be wrong but I'd always assumed that the current platforms at
Sudbury Hill, Harrow are replacements and that the originals were on the
platform loops, as at Wembley Stadium and the Ruislips, hence my previous
comments where I was assuming that remaining widths between the existing
platforms and the edge of the formation would be insufficient to reinstate a
permanent way (and for NR/HSE to permit a double sided platform).

Risborough had to be entirely replaced as the structural investigation
revealed that water/frost ingress had caused the platform walls to bulge and
the original structure was consequently condemned.

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chiltern is the sort of company that wants
to do well by their passengers

Only their long distance passengers. Their lack of interest in serving local
London journeys is blatant and seemingly out of character.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes