Dave Hillam wrote:
They have had them on WAGN for some time now, though to start with an
Oystercard with a photocard was regarded by some WAGN RPIs as valid
without checking with the reader, presumably on the basis that it
looked as if it ought to have a season ticket on it?

Wagn staff will still accept being shown a 'not valid for travel'
record card without scanning the Oyster (and these cards would be
extremely easy to fake), and only scanned me because I gave him my pass
'closed'. It was never opened to check my photograph.

To be honest, if you wave anything at most RPIs then they'll accept if
you don't fit their profile of an evader (when they might actually stop
to read your ticket). I expected potential hassle for combining a point
to point ticket with a Oyster travelcard, but I don't think any RPI has
even noticed my Gold Card doesn't go all the way to London in three
months of showing it!!

Jonathan

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote in message
. gla.ac.uk...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Colin wrote:

They have 'validators' on the platform (Think Oyster Card Pads without
gates).

So presumably on-train ticket examining staff will need oyster card
readers?

Can't all the TOCs that have trains running in the zoned area already check
Oyster cards? It is only 'pay as you go' that isn't implemented.

Paul

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, MIG wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Simon Wren wrote:

Paul Scott wrote:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=187553&NewsAreaID=2&Navig atedFromDepartment=False

The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not
being transferred - what are these?

And to see TFL's positive plans for these valuable routes:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=690

This sounds like great news.

So does this all mean that TfL simply takes over the existing franchise,
with 313s and 508s still going Euston to Watford and Bakerloo still
going from Queens Park to Harrow?

That's not quite in line with previous discussion of the Bakerloo taking
over the Watford service.

Was there ever any evidence for that? We went over this about six months
ago, and someone (Dave A?) brought up the fact that the Bakerloo was cut
back from Watford to Harrow because everybody travelling from north of
there (and most people from south of there, i think) wanted to go to
Euston, not the West End. That was a long time ago, but i suspect it's
still true, which would mean that replacing the Euston service with the
Bakerloo would be a retrograde step.

I had visions of maybe relaying the fourth rail to Watford, and (less
likely) keeping a service to South Hampsted and Kilburn High Road by
installing a connection east of Queens Park, allowing trains from Euston
to call at those stations, then use the unused platforms at Queens Park
to allow for interchange, and then proceed semifast to Watford or
beyond.

I don't really see the point of that service pattern. The 'semifast to
Watford or beyond' bit makes this a duplication of the County service, but
the Queens Park / KHR / South Hampstead bit would make it slower. Who
would this be useful for? The only journey that gets quicker is Watford to
KHR or South Hampstead, which is probably not a hugely popular one!


I can't necessarily see the point of it. It's just that I thought that
the takover by the Bakerloo was what had been proposed, eg Modern
Railways, December 2005, "All Change at Silverlink Metro".

I thought it might well disadvantage people, and possibly result in a
very poor service from, or closure of, the stations between Queens Park
and Euston. If there's a need for a more frequent service to Watford,
I don't see why Silverlink can't provide it anyway. The logic seemed
to be that the Underground is intrinsically more frequent than National
Rail; therefore the only way to provide a more frequent service is to
extend the Underground.

But the service I was imagining would give a much better connection to
Watford than anyone arriving on the Bakerloo currently gets. I don't
really understand why Silverlink County doesn't throw in some stops at
Queens Park anyway, given that the platforms are there, allowing a
fastish journey south of Watford and interchange to the Bakerloo.

In reply to news post, which TheOneKEA wrote on
Tue, 14 Feb 2006 -
Colin wrote:
They have 'validators' on the platform (Think Oyster Card Pads without
gates).

Whats the betting that Zone 6 will move out to Watford Junction because of
this?

No need. Watford Met is in Zone A, along with Rickmansworth and Croxley
Met. It would be simple to extend the lettered zones north of Harrow
and Wealdstone to cover the remainder of the DC line.

This would probably be the case as they are in Hertfordshire and so do
not receive the same funding from the county council as zone 1-6
--
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

asdf wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 14:37:40 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

So does this all mean that TfL simply takes over the existing
franchise, with 313s and 508s still going Euston to Watford and
Bakerloo still going from Queens Park to Harrow?

Initially, yes. The press release says new trains will be delivered
within 5 years (it's not clear whether that's 5 years from the date of
the press release or the transfer of control).

That's not quite in line with previous discussion of the Bakerloo
taking over the Watford service.

According to the previous discussion, that's supposed to happen in
2010.

I had visions of maybe relaying the fourth rail to Watford, and (less
likely) keeping a service to South Hampsted and Kilburn High Road by
installing a connection east of Queens Park, allowing trains from
Euston to call at those stations, then use the unused platforms at
Queens Park to allow for interchange, and then proceed semifast to
Watford or beyond.

I take it you're assuming the Watford-Euston DC service will be axed.
Even if it is, South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road would probably
stay open because of the proposed Queens Park to Stratford service -
thus becoming "orbital" stations. Passengers for central London would
be expected to walk to Swiss Cottage and Kilburn Park respectively
(although if they're going to Euston it will take them a lot longer to
get there).


Yes, I've now reread the article, which previously I was just
part-remembering.

I wonder how they will turn round trains from Stratford at Queen's Park
though? I would have thought a connection east of Queens Park would
probably be a less major work than fourth rail from Harrow to Watford,
and could be done at the same time, or just before to provide an
alternative while the latter is going on.

In article .com,
MIG wrote:
But the service I was imagining would give a much better connection to
Watford than anyone arriving on the Bakerloo currently gets. I don't
really understand why Silverlink County doesn't throw in some stops at
Queens Park anyway, given that the platforms are there, allowing a
fastish journey south of Watford and interchange to the Bakerloo.

A big problem is that there are platforms only on the slow line at Queens
Park so, if trains are booked to call there, operating flexibility is
reduced significantly. Another problem is that the platforms are very
narrow, so it would be difficult to separate passengers for different
trains in the down direction. Connecting at Wembley Central could be a
better option.

There were trains stopping there for about eighteen months, about the time
that Willesden Jct to Clapham Jct opened. I travelled that way several
times, but there were not many other passengers.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

In article . com,
MIG wrote:
I wonder how they will turn round trains from Stratford at Queen's Park
though? I would have thought a connection east of Queens Park would
probably be a less major work than fourth rail from Harrow to Watford,
and could be done at the same time, or just before to provide an
alternative while the latter is going on.

There is a crossover on the Queens Park side of Kilburn High Road station.
This was used, in the other direction, when the line into Euston was
blocked for a while. This means that reversing at Queens Park wouldn't need
any track alterations.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

David H Wild wrote:

A big problem is that there are platforms only on the slow line at
Queens Park so, if trains are booked to call there, operating
flexibility is reduced significantly.

There are fast line platforms at Queen's Park but nothing is booked to use
them, nor has there been for some years. Silverlink County services have
used them in emergencies and IIRC some late night trains have stopped there
on occasions, usually when engineering work has been taking place.

In article ,
Jack Taylor wrote:
There are fast line platforms at Queen's Park but nothing is booked to
use them, nor has there been for some years. Silverlink County services
have used them in emergencies and IIRC some late night trains have
stopped there on occasions, usually when engineering work has been
taking place.

I'm sorry, Jack, but there are **no** fast line platforms at Queens Park,
just those on the slow lines.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

Jack Taylor wrote:
A big problem is that there are platforms only on the slow line at
Queens Park so, if trains are booked to call there, operating
flexibility is reduced significantly.

There are fast line platforms at Queen's Park but nothing is booked to use
them, nor has there been for some years. Silverlink County services have
used them in emergencies and IIRC some late night trains have stopped there
on occasions, usually when engineering work has been taking place.

Are you sure? I thought there were DC line platforms (used) and WCML
slow line platforms (used only in emergencies and being discussed in
the context of this thread), but no WCML fast line platforms.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org