"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

Dave Arquati wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:
I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a reduction
of 32% on the Met Main.

This is really rather silly, given that the Met is more like Merseyrail
(a suburban rail service that happens to have underground sections)
than LUL proper, and has different loadings and journey lengths.

It would make much more sense to specify the stock with tracked seating
and no equipment under the seats so it can be adapted for the relevant
routes.

Still, presumably they'll need all that extra
standing space for those displaced off of Chiltern? The good news is
they'll have air con (in the driver's cab only mind you...).

That *is* ridiculous. Given that the subsurface lines do not suffer
the same issues as far as tunnel ventilation goes as the tubes do, I
was expecting full aircon throughout.

Unless something's changed recently, S stock will have air con throughout:

"The sub-surface lines will receive 190 air-conditioned trains in the
first 12 years of the contract, replacing and enlarging existing fleets
on the Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City and District lines. The
new sub-surface line trains will feature inter-connecting gangways,
allowing passengers to walk through the entire train. They will be the
same design, saving on maintenance and parts, and together with new
signalling, will achieve vastly improved journey times. The first new
train will enter service on the Metropolitan line in 2009 with others
following at the rate of one every 10 days."
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1079446073890

And do you really believe them......?

www.waspies.net wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:
I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a reduction
of 32% on the Met Main.

This is really rather silly, given that the Met is more like Merseyrail
(a suburban rail service that happens to have underground sections)
than LUL proper, and has different loadings and journey lengths.

It would make much more sense to specify the stock with tracked seating
and no equipment under the seats so it can be adapted for the relevant
routes.

Still, presumably they'll need all that extra
standing space for those displaced off of Chiltern? The good news is
they'll have air con (in the driver's cab only mind you...).

That *is* ridiculous. Given that the subsurface lines do not suffer
the same issues as far as tunnel ventilation goes as the tubes do, I
was expecting full aircon throughout.

Unless something's changed recently, S stock will have air con
throughout:

"The sub-surface lines will receive 190 air-conditioned trains in the
first 12 years of the contract, replacing and enlarging existing
fleets on the Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City and District
lines. The new sub-surface line trains will feature inter-connecting
gangways, allowing passengers to walk through the entire train. They
will be the same design, saving on maintenance and parts, and together
with new signalling, will achieve vastly improved journey times. The
first new train will enter service on the Metropolitan line in 2009
with others following at the rate of one every 10 days."
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1079446073890

And do you really believe them......?

Why shouldn't I? TfL have ordered air-conditioned trains, Bombardier
will deliver air-conditioned trains. If Bombardier don't deliver
air-conditioned trains, then they are not fulfilling the order, and
somebody doesn't get paid.

On an additional note, although people have been saying that S-stock
will only have longitudinal seating, the promotional shots show a mixtu
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1088068912937

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

Sort of answering my original question -

In the book "The Met & GC Joint Line" by Clive Foxell, he states that if
a Chiltern train arrives 3 minutes late at each end of the joint line,
it will be held until the next slot is available. However, if a Chiltern
train is held up by an LUL train, then Chiltern receive financial
compensation. The book also states that ticket revenue from Amersham to
Harrow is shared. For onward travel, two sample checks of tickets are
made each year to calculate the share of revenue. This book was
published in 2000 and perhaps something since then has changed, but
certainly the automatic barriers must now help in calculating the share
of ticket revenue.

Can anyone confirm this is still the case?
--
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

In article ,
www.waspies.net wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Unless something's changed recently, S stock will have air con throughout:

And do you really believe them......?

Personally, I think it's more likely than not. They've announced
it, and the bleeding (sub)standard would have a field day if aircon
were to 'fall off' the spec.

Is it 100% certain to happen? It's not on the list of three, so no.

--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

Dave Arquati wrote:
wrote:

I believe the "seating" issue on the new SSL S-stock has been decided.
It will be the same for all cars - whether formed as 6, 7 or 8's. This
will mean a slight increase in seats on the Circle/H&C Lines (and even
more so if station rebuilds allow for 7-car operation), but a
reduction of 32% on the Met Main.

On an additional note, although people have been saying that S-stock
will only have longitudinal seating, the promotional shots show a mixtu
http://www.metronetrail.com/default....=1088068912937

And also an astonishing amount of empty floor space. That 32%
reduction figure looks optimistic to me.

I think Met line passengers are not going to be at all happy, unless
the service frequency doubles.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

I think Met line passengers are not going to be at all happy, unless
the service frequency doubles.

Which is entirely the opposite of what's currently proposed...