[uk.transport.london added]

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

There are proposals to cut peak services to Amersham by Chiltern
from the December 2006 timetable.

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion at

http://www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb...?showtopic=224

From the discussion on the link above, there is a feeling that
Chiltern are making these proposals as they want to concentrate on
services where they are the only provider, i.e. north of Amersham
and on the Wycombe line.

Maybe so, but having read the discussion myself, it appears to only be
a few peak hour journies affected.

I think it's far more significant than you make out. These are the
most-used trains of the day, and it's scarcely an exaggeration to say
that some people's lives revolve around them (did you read the whole
thread?).

The number of Chiltern trains from Amersham arriving in London between
0800 and 0900 is being reduced from 3 to 1. The number leaving London
between 1700 and 1800 is being reduced from 2 to 1. It's a major cut
in service.

Chiltern have made a big thing of providing more capacity at
Marylebone, but it seems none will be made available to passengers
on the Met section of the line they serve.

How So ? it only appears to be certain peak hour journies affected
(and the short sunday runs between Aylesbury and Amersham), there will
still be the other peak and off-peak services you can use.

I think he meant none of the *additional* capacity...

Does anyone know details of the current arrangements for revenue /
cost sharing on the Aylesbury via Amersham line, or any suggestions
on how to find this out?

If you read the discussion you posted a link for it states that the
arrangement is such that Chiltern get "free" usage of the LU tracks
between Mantles Wood Junction and Harrow on the Hill in return, TfL/LU
keep all the fare revenue.

It also seems from the discussion that the only reason Chiltern stop
these trains at Amersham at all is that LU require them to as part of
the track access agreement.

Considering Chiltern have little other reason to stop these trains
there, and in fact have a large financial reason not to, perhaps all
this campaigning to Chiltern is misguided. Perhaps LU should be
targetted instead, as it seems to be up to them whether Chiltern
reduce their level of service at Amersham or not.

If there is an issue about Chiltern receiving an appropriate share
of the revenue for the service they provide, then this needs to be
resolved in the interests of the passengers. They appear to be the
ones who suffer, cutting these trains at Amersham will cause them
problems.

Indeed. Times have changed and Chiltern are now by far the main
service provider between Amersham and London.[1] Perhaps the agreement
is out-dated if it discourages the main service provider from actually
providing a service.

Amersham must be one of the few stations to receive a
relatively poor peak service compared to off peak.

You're right - the only others I can think of off the top of my head
are Rickmansworth and Cambridge.

Some have suggested that Chiltern should be allowed to charge a
premium to Met passengers. This perhaps could be achieved by the
Oyster system. If they were allowed to do that, perhaps other
national rail companies would be more in favour of Oyster

This would surely be very difficult to achieve, and could only really
successfully be done on met line passengers using Marylebone. At all
other stations there would be no guaranteed way to determine what
train someone used to get there, whereas if you've started at or
arrived at Marylebone you've clearly used Chiltern.

It would also be the end of interavailable ticketing, which wouldn't
be a good thing for the passenger.


[1]
Chiltern's DMUs can travel at line speed whereas the Met stock is
restricted to 50mph in its old age. Chiltern's trains are
air-conditioned while LU's aren't. And there seems to be ever more
disruption on the Met since the advent of PPP. Anyone with an old
timetable able to compare today's journey times with those of, say, 20
years ago?

Perhaps when the new S Stock is introduced, with air-con, faster
acceleration, and higher top speed, the pendulum will swing back the
other way.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

7 I would suggest Oyster could cope with charging a premium for
journeys starting and stopping at Marylebone. Use of intermediate
stations could not be done, but I should think most revenue would be
received at Marylebone anyway. I think inter train company ticketing
would still survive, one would just consider Chiltern a "first class"
service, thus you can use your ticket if you have paid for the first
class service.
--
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

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, asdf wrote:

Some have suggested that Chiltern should be allowed to charge a
premium to Met passengers. This perhaps could be achieved by the
Oyster system. If they were allowed to do that, perhaps other
national rail companies would be more in favour of Oyster
[...]
It would also be the end of interavailable ticketing, which wouldn't
be a good thing for the passenger.

Well, not entirely. Some other railway systems seem to manage to
define a base tariff (e.g for a season ticket), which can also be used
on premium trains by purchasing a one-off supplement per use.

I'm not sure how you'd tell an Oyster reader what your wishes were in
this regard, though.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, asdf wrote:

Some have suggested that Chiltern should be allowed to charge a
premium to Met passengers. This perhaps could be achieved by the
Oyster system. If they were allowed to do that, perhaps other
national rail companies would be more in favour of Oyster
[...]
It would also be the end of interavailable ticketing, which wouldn't
be a good thing for the passenger.

Well, not entirely. Some other railway systems seem to manage to
define a base tariff (e.g for a season ticket), which can also be used
on premium trains by purchasing a one-off supplement per use.

I'm not sure how you'd tell an Oyster reader what your wishes were in
this regard, though.
I wonder if this went through and Chiltern reducing their serving of TFL
LU stations if there would still be priority given to Chiltern trains on
the track, if TFL LU want to make things difficult they can and delay
chiltern affecting their performance ratings.

Just a thought

"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).

"www.waspies.net" wrote in message
...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, asdf wrote:

Some have suggested that Chiltern should be allowed to charge a
premium to Met passengers. This perhaps could be achieved by
the Oyster system. If they were allowed to do that, perhaps
other national rail companies would be more in favour of Oyster
[...]
It would also be the end of interavailable ticketing, which
wouldn't be a good thing for the passenger.

Well, not entirely. Some other railway systems seem to manage to
define a base tariff (e.g for a season ticket), which can also be
used on premium trains by purchasing a one-off supplement per use.

I'm not sure how you'd tell an Oyster reader what your wishes were
in this regard, though.
I wonder if this went through and Chiltern reducing their serving of
TFL LU stations if there would still be priority given to Chiltern
trains on the track, if TFL LU want to make things difficult they
can and delay chiltern affecting their performance ratings.

Just a thought


Certainly a good point..... Do Chiltern have priority all "day" or is
it just during the peak hours ?

I realise it'll never happen, but one thing that I, and others, have
put forward before is that what is currently the Met line from
Rickmansworth, northwards be handed over to Network Rail & Chiltern,
so that they can run all services along that corridor, allowing the
Met line to concentrate their resources on the Watford line services.
Depending on capacity, Chiltern may have to stop some services at Moor
Park and, possibly, an hourly or half hourly Rickmansworth to Watford
service, to allow interchange between the two services.
This "sale" but TFL, would then give them more of the money they need
to link the Met into Watford Junction.

Responding to various pints relating to growth in traffic on Chiltern
from West Midland etc., why do the passengers who used the service in
the times before the expansion have to suffer at the expense of new
passengers?

The other point is yes TFL could put another service on, but passengers
want to use Chiltern, there is a demand, thus just because the financing
of the line is a mess, why should the passengers suffer? There is also
the claim that no more paths are available and the Met has to cater for
the two through Chesham services which makes for an uneven service to
Amersham. The number of rail users from Chesham and Missenden are small
than Amersham, yet they gain and Amersham loses.
--
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

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:27:47 +0100, Matt Wheeler wrote:

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.

Perhaps I'm being picky and it just depends how you look at it, but
the faster services are not really a "premium" service. A standard
season ticket (price capped by legislation) is valid on all train
operators. The operator of the slower service may, if they wish,
introduce a discounted one valid only on their services.

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.

I dunno; they could do a ticket check afterwards, and the only tickets
that would be valid would be ones from Great Missenden, which they get
the revenue for. Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas ;-)

asdf wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:27:47 +0100, Matt Wheeler wrote:

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.

Perhaps I'm being picky and it just depends how you look at it, but
the faster services are not really a "premium" service. A standard
season ticket (price capped by legislation) is valid on all train
operators. The operator of the slower service may, if they wish,
introduce a discounted one valid only on their services.

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.

I dunno; they could do a ticket check afterwards, and the only tickets
that would be valid would be ones from Great Missenden, which they get
the revenue for. Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas ;-)

I've seen such an idea work on the Bendigo-Melbourne route in
Australia- in the morning peak a couple of railcars arrive at Sunbury
(effectively the limit of the suburban service) from Bendigo as
set-down only, the train is clearly announced as not picking up and
nobody tries. Five minutes later the stopping train comes out of the
siding and everyobdy boards. As long as people know their train is
coming in a couple of minutes (and ideally can see it waiting for a
clear line) there's no problem.

Amersham must be one of the few stations to receive a
relatively poor peak service compared to off peak.

You're right - the only others I can think of off the top of my head
are Rickmansworth and Cambridge.



Victoria to Brighton.

London Bridge to Brighton.

Lewisham to Charing Cross (and in the non-peak direction, no service at
all to/from Charing Cross on Dartford lines).