"Matthew P Jones" wrote in message
...
In reply to news post, which asdf wrote on
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 -

[uk.transport.london added]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:30:14 +0100, Matt Wheeler wrote:


Adding some reactions to comments, in no particular order

1 The cuts are significant. If people are to reach their
destinations on time, they would be forced to catch an earlier
train. These earlier trains are already heavily loaded with standing
all the way. This will not only affect people at Amersham, but those
further down the line will suffer more over crowding.

2 the Chiltern services are far superior to the current Met
service. However, if people have to transfer to met trains, then
although they may be relatively empty out in the country, past
Harrow they are already crowded and would have to take more
passengers. One of the reasons Marylebone was not closed in the
1980s was because Baker Street could not take the extra passengers,
but there is now a danger it will have to.


Chiltern appear to have a finite resource of rolling stock (as does
any train company), but have increasing passenger numbers. They want
to make best use of this to transport as many passengers as possible.
Many/Most stations on the services via High Wycombe don't have
alternative services available, Amersham (and points south) do have an
alternative Rail service available, the Met line service.

Looking at the current Met line timetable, there is a train starting
at Rickmansworth at 7:33, arriving Baker Street at 8:08. Perhaps you
could campaign for TfL (or whoever is responsible for timetabling the
Met line services) to start that at Amersham (or at Chesham and start
the slightly later Chesham departure at Amersham) to provide some
increased capacity.

Alternatively, lets say Chiltern don't make the timetable changes but
only schedule a 2 or 3 car unit on the services... chances are there
will be very little space for People from Amersham (or points south)
which will make people catch earlier/later services anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Amersham users actually decide
to pay the extra and drive to Great Missenden (or possibly one of the
Wycombe line stations) and catch the services from there.

To me the sitation with the Met and Chiltern isn't too much different
to lines out of London where the tracks are shared by local and
InterCity operators. (eg to Stevenage/Peterborough, Watford/Milton
Keynes). The Intercity operator being the faster "premium" service
(in our case, Chiltern), and the local operator operating being
equivalent to the Met services. many of the Intercity services are
either non-stop or set down or pick up only especially during peak
hours, and it seems Chiltern are working on a similar basis, but not
stopping instead of having pick up/set down at, say, Amersham.
Trying to do a set-down only stop at Amersham in the morning peak
would be futile, as all the passengers waiting on the platform would
cram onto the train anyway, so the only option would be not to stop at
all.


3 The new S stock will not arrive until 2009. There is some
doubt about the seating. Thus, although they may be faster than
current A stock with better climate control, will people use them if
there are fewer seats and if the seats are sideways along the
carriage?


Has a decision been made on this ?
I've just found an article, admittedly from December 2004's Modern
Railways, suggesting that although the S stock would be the same for
all sub-surface lines, there would still be some differences,
including 8 cars for the Met, 7 for District and 6 for Circle, and, at
least then, no decision on seating layout, but given the differing
train lengths, I wouldn't be surprised if the Met line trains have a
mixed layout rather than just being a longer circle line train.


4 It is stated ion the thread Chiltern receive no revenue from
the met stations, but my point was, is this actually correct? I had
heard in the past it was a straight 50/50 share - what is the real
situation?


My understanding, from discussions in the past on uk.railway, is that,
for fare revenue, Chiltern keep anything that is taken in their ticket
offices (ie Marylebone and Great Missended to Aylesbury) and any fares
paid at Met ticket offices is kept by them.



5 I confirm, my point was none of the extra capacity at
Marylebone is being used for the Aylesbury line. How can Chiltern
be allowed to expand if they cannot currently serve their existing
passengers. I wonder if there new express services to the Midlands
take off, will stations such as Denham, Gerrards Cross, and other
inner stations suffer a reduced service to make way for longer
distance travellers.


Arguably, this happens already, it just depends on how you look at it.
Based on the current timetable at least half of the Birmingham
services stop at only 1 or 2 stations south of Bicester North. With
"local" services from Wycombe and Princes Risborough covering most of
the stations towards London.

Your point on capacity is quite true, however, the reason the extra
space is needed at Marylebone is entirely down to the huge growth
experiences on the services to/from the West Midlands.


6 My rational for the suggesting that fares north of Amersham
would go up if Met stations were not served is based on the fact
that fares to Amersham are on the LUL scale. Chiltern can not put
fares to much higher at great Missenden, about 4 miles from
Amersham, as if they did, people would travel to Amersham instead.
Remove the possibility of people using Amersham for cheaper fares
and they can put their fares up.


If they did go up it wouldn't be by too much. Amersham isn't the only
reason the fares from Great Missenden (and Wendover and Stoke
Mandeville) are prices as they are.
For instance, a travel card season for 1 year from Aylesbury is 3,200,
Stoke Mandeville is about 2750, down to about 2500 at Great
Missenden.... Compared to the other stations, Aylesbury has limited
car park capacity, so the lower fares are, at least in part, to
encourage potential passengers to park and travel from Stoke
Mandeville, Wendover and Great Missenden, which have much larger car
parks.
If they were to put fares up, Aylesbury's would surely need to stay
less than Haddenham (currently about 3390), which is further from
London (although it does, again, have a larger car park).