Jack Taylor wrote:

TBH, I can't see anything
getting done to change the situation within the next ten years, at least,
due to the ownership situation of the two sections of line. TfL (or Ken, at
least) have aspirations to seize control of the Aylesbury services - but I
can foresee a major battle ensuing if that were attempted.


You are probably right. Although, I am not entirely sure why. I am a
lifelong GC fan who grew up near Aylesbury. And, I have a soft spot
for the old met. So from a nostalgic perspective I hate to see any
more dismantling of the old order.

However, let us look at this from Chiltern's viewpoint. By stealth
Chiltern have acquired a main line from London to Birmingham. The
development potential on that line is immense. Chiltern's investment
thus far is paying off. They have a loyal and satisfied customer base.

By comparison to Chiltern's Birmingham route, the Aylesbury "branch"
must be a nuisance. For a major portion of their journey Chiltern's
trains have to share inferior standard track with subway trains.
Chiltern's engineers have to be familiar with two different signaling
systems.

Moreover, TfL's electrification is wasted on Chiltern's diesel fleet.
I would suggest there is room for some strategic planning here. If
Chiltern lost the Aylesbury route it could be a gain for them.

Adrian

Los Angeles County, California
Webmaster http://www.losangelesmetro.net/

"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

You are probably right. Although, I am not entirely sure why. I am a
lifelong GC fan who grew up near Aylesbury. And, I have a soft spot
for the old met. So from a nostalgic perspective I hate to see any
more dismantling of the old order.

I can understand that viewpoint. The old Metropolitan Railway was a special
beast. The LUL Metropolitan Line, OTOH, is nothing special! I would like to
see the line running as close to mainline standards as possible, rather than
the current excuse for a service.

However, let us look at this from Chiltern's viewpoint. By stealth
Chiltern have acquired a main line from London to Birmingham. The
development potential on that line is immense. Chiltern's investment
thus far is paying off. They have a loyal and satisfied customer base.

As indeed they do on the Aylesbury line. The fact that they can now run (and
fill) trains which run non-stop between Great Missenden and Marylebone (and
that quite a number of former LUL passengers drive to Great Missenden to use
these, in preference to LUL Amersham services) is testament to that. There
is great potential for further enhancements in the area north of Amersham
(even north of Aylesbury), as the number of people choosing to live (or only
being able to afford to live!) that far out from London steadily increases.

By comparison to Chiltern's Birmingham route, the Aylesbury "branch"
must be a nuisance. For a major portion of their journey Chiltern's
trains have to share inferior standard track with subway trains.
Chiltern's engineers have to be familiar with two different signaling
systems.

A problem - but one which they have been capable of coping with for many
years.

Moreover, TfL's electrification is wasted on Chiltern's diesel fleet.
I would suggest there is room for some strategic planning here. If
Chiltern lost the Aylesbury route it could be a gain for them.

From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches, with the current fast
lines to Amersham and beyond transferred to Network Rail control, where they
can be upgraded to proper main line standards of minimum 75mph, as opposed
to the present stagger. The two systems would then be entirely segregated.

The arguments about through running to the City are spurious. When I first
started commuting, all off-peak services terminated at Baker Street in any
case and it is only in recent years that through running throughout the day
has recommenced. In spite of that, the numbers of passengers that do travel
through off-peak is negligible and could easily be catered for by a
cross-platform transfer to a Watford or Uxbridge service at
Harrow-on-the-Hill. Many City passengers already use Chiltern into
Marylebone and transfer to LUL services there, due to the quicker journey
times (11 minutes Harrow to Marylebone, as opposed to 20 minutes to Baker
Street - or longer in the rush hour when it is not uncommon to sit
stationary on the Met line between Preston Road and Baker Street!).

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to
operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches, with the current fast
lines to Amersham and beyond transferred to Network Rail control, where
they
can be upgraded to proper main line standards of minimum 75mph, as opposed
to the present stagger. The two systems would then be entirely segregated.

Being a loyal Great Central man myself, I would love to see faster services
to Aylesbury. I've only done the return trip once (and that was very
recently) from Aylesbury to Marylebone and it did seem a shame that this
once-main-line had become a LUL backwater in places. Only south of Harrow
did it feel like we were actually moving again.

fantasia

It would be nice to see Chiltern Rail continue to invest in their lines, as
they have in the past, and create the oft spoken of "Aylesbury North" as
well as faster trains to London. Perhaps even go further north of
Aylesbury - a regular service to the Bucks Rail Centre would be nice, even
though it's unlikely to ever pay its way.


--
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

However, let us look at this from Chiltern's viewpoint. By stealth
Chiltern have acquired a main line from London to Birmingham. The
development potential on that line is immense. Chiltern's investment
thus far is paying off. They have a loyal and satisfied customer base.

As indeed they do on the Aylesbury line. The fact that they can now run (and
fill) trains which run non-stop between Great Missenden and Marylebone (and
that quite a number of former LUL passengers drive to Great Missenden to use
these, in preference to LUL Amersham services) is testament to that.

Do Chiltern not also run services that run non-stop between Amersham
and Marylebone?

Moreover, TfL's electrification is wasted on Chiltern's diesel fleet.
I would suggest there is room for some strategic planning here. If
Chiltern lost the Aylesbury route it could be a gain for them.

From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches, with the current fast
lines to Amersham and beyond transferred to Network Rail control, where they
can be upgraded to proper main line standards of minimum 75mph, as opposed
to the present stagger. The two systems would then be entirely segregated.

But wouldn't Chiltern then run into capacity problems south of
Neasden?

Maybe the line would need to be quadrupled there, although I doubt
there's space. IIRC, in the western entrance to Marylebone station,
there are photos showing the construction of two tunnels from
Marylebone to Finchley Road (ish), though only one is now in use - was
the second tunnel ever completed, and if so does it still exist?

The arguments about through running to the City are spurious. When I first
started commuting, all off-peak services terminated at Baker Street in any
case and it is only in recent years that through running throughout the day
has recommenced.

I believe the current situation is that all off-peak Watford/Amersham
trains now start and finish at Baker Street.

In spite of that, the numbers of passengers that do travel
through off-peak is negligible and could easily be catered for by a
cross-platform transfer to a Watford or Uxbridge service at
Harrow-on-the-Hill.

It's not cross-platform, unless some major remodelling goes on at
Harrow...

In any case, the through-running-to-City problems would be largely
solved by Chiltern's proposal for an enhanced West Hampstead
interchange.

Jack Taylor wrote:
"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

You are probably right. Although, I am not entirely sure why. I am a
lifelong GC fan who grew up near Aylesbury. And, I have a soft spot
for the old met. So from a nostalgic perspective I hate to see any
more dismantling of the old order.


I can understand that viewpoint. The old Metropolitan Railway was a special
beast. The LUL Metropolitan Line, OTOH, is nothing special! I would like to
see the line running as close to mainline standards as possible, rather than
the current excuse for a service.


However, let us look at this from Chiltern's viewpoint. By stealth
Chiltern have acquired a main line from London to Birmingham. The
development potential on that line is immense. Chiltern's investment
thus far is paying off. They have a loyal and satisfied customer base.


As indeed they do on the Aylesbury line. The fact that they can now run (and
fill) trains which run non-stop between Great Missenden and Marylebone (and
that quite a number of former LUL passengers drive to Great Missenden to use
these, in preference to LUL Amersham services) is testament to that. There
is great potential for further enhancements in the area north of Amersham
(even north of Aylesbury), as the number of people choosing to live (or only
being able to afford to live!) that far out from London steadily increases.


By comparison to Chiltern's Birmingham route, the Aylesbury "branch"
must be a nuisance. For a major portion of their journey Chiltern's
trains have to share inferior standard track with subway trains.
Chiltern's engineers have to be familiar with two different signaling
systems.


A problem - but one which they have been capable of coping with for many
years.


Moreover, TfL's electrification is wasted on Chiltern's diesel fleet.
I would suggest there is room for some strategic planning here. If
Chiltern lost the Aylesbury route it could be a gain for them.


From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches, with the current fast
lines to Amersham and beyond transferred to Network Rail control, where they
can be upgraded to proper main line standards of minimum 75mph, as opposed
to the present stagger. The two systems would then be entirely segregated.

The arguments about through running to the City are spurious. When I first
started commuting, all off-peak services terminated at Baker Street in any
case and it is only in recent years that through running throughout the day
has recommenced. In spite of that, the numbers of passengers that do travel
through off-peak is negligible and could easily be catered for by a
cross-platform transfer to a Watford or Uxbridge service at
Harrow-on-the-Hill. Many City passengers already use Chiltern into
Marylebone and transfer to LUL services there, due to the quicker journey
times (11 minutes Harrow to Marylebone, as opposed to 20 minutes to Baker
Street - or longer in the rush hour when it is not uncommon to sit
stationary on the Met line between Preston Road and Baker Street!).


When I was a child Bakerloo services ran to the Junction, and there were
still a few peak hour services in the early seventies. I'm not suere
why these stopped.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

"Ronnie Clark" rve.co.uk
wrote in message ...

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings
are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to
operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches, with the current
fast
lines to Amersham and beyond transferred to Network Rail control, where
they
can be upgraded to proper main line standards of minimum 75mph, as
opposed
to the present stagger. The two systems would then be entirely
segregated.

Being a loyal Great Central man myself, I would love to see faster
services
to Aylesbury. I've only done the return trip once (and that was very
recently) from Aylesbury to Marylebone and it did seem a shame that this
once-main-line had become a LUL backwater in places. Only south of Harrow
did it feel like we were actually moving again.

fantasia

It would be nice to see Chiltern Rail continue to invest in their lines,
as
they have in the past, and create the oft spoken of "Aylesbury North" as
well as faster trains to London. Perhaps even go further north of
Aylesbury - a regular service to the Bucks Rail Centre would be nice, even
though it's unlikely to ever pay its way.

Having read the replies, I'm coming round to the view that transferring the
Met Amersham services to Chiltern may be the best answer, giving possibly
complete segregation of NR and LUL services. The West Hampstead interchange
would be a prerequisite, to give Amersham passengers easy routes to the
City. Even with the stop at West Hampstead, resignalling could allow a
robust service of around 18 tph south of Neasden (say 10 from the Wycombe
route and 8 from the Amersham/ Aylesbury route) (for it to be robust, the
signalling would have to allow 2.5 min headways for trains stopping at West
Hampstead).

There may, in this scenario, be a case for keeping Rickmansworth to Chesham
electrified, to serve Chesham with a shuttle to Watford Junction via the
Croxley link, but also allowing same platform interchange at Chalfont with
Marylebone - Amersham/Aylesbury trains.

Peter

"asdf" wrote in message
...

Do Chiltern not also run services that run non-stop between Amersham
and Marylebone?

They do - in addition to some that run non-stop between Great Missenden and
Marylebone - but only up in the morning peak and down in the evening peak.

But wouldn't Chiltern then run into capacity problems south of
Neasden?

Track capacity is not a problem but the signalling of the existing
infrastructure is the constraint at present. However, Evergreen 2 will
address many of the problems, installing additional sections and upgrading
two-aspect to three-aspect and some three-aspect to four-aspect throughout
the Chiltern system.

It's not cross-platform, unless some major remodelling goes on at
Harrow...

True - in the pure sense. I wasn't actually using the term to mean
cross-platform-face but to mean crossing from one platform to another at the
same station.

In any case, the through-running-to-City problems would be largely
solved by Chiltern's proposal for an enhanced West Hampstead
interchange.

Agreed. The sooner that this comes about, the better.

Martin Edwards wrote:

When I was a child Bakerloo services ran to the Junction, and there were
still a few peak hour services in the early seventies. I'm not suere why
these stopped.

Because they were never profitable but the old depot was located up on that
route. Then the Stonebridge Park depot opened and totally altered the line's
requirements.

Ronnie Clark wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

(snip)
It would be nice to see Chiltern Rail continue to invest in their lines, as
they have in the past, and create the oft spoken of "Aylesbury North" as
well as faster trains to London. Perhaps even go further north of
Aylesbury - a regular service to the Bucks Rail Centre would be nice, even
though it's unlikely to ever pay its way.

Aylesbury North station is looking increasingly likely; Chiltern have
been working on it for some time and Adrian Shooter (chairman of
Chiltern) alluded to plans for it on the same model as Warwick Parkway,
which Chiltern built themselves. A lot of new housing is going up close
to the railway north of Aylesbury, so the potential for a station here
(which would also act as a parkway station) is very good.

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

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...

Jack Taylor wrote:

From over fifteen years commuting experience on the line, my feelings
are
the opposite. I strongly feel that the solution should be for LUL to
operate
the Uxbridge and Watford (Junction, ASAP) branches...

snip

When I was a child Bakerloo services ran to the Junction, and there were
still a few peak hour services in the early seventies. I'm not suere
why these stopped.

Others have answered this question in relation to the Bakerloo, but it might
help to point out that what Jack was referring to by the words "Junction
ASAP" is the Croxley Link proposal, which will allow Met line trains to
access Watford Junction from Rickmansworth. In particular this would be
useful for links from the north-western outer suburbs (both north and south
of Rickmansworth) to connect with the WCML at Watford Junction and avoid
having to go via London.

Regards

Jonathan