Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to having
just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?

wrote in message
...
Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to having
just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?



According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham trains
per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout the day
thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.
Its poor if you live at Amersham I guess, but during the day (when I have
used it) its hardly fight for a seat time

"Frank Incense" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to
having just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?

According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham
trains per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout
the day thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.

Chesham already has an "all day" service to central London, although the
last leg of it is a shuttle from Chalfont & Latimer. Will they be running
a shuttle to Amersham instead?

"Frank Incense" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to
having just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?

According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham trains
per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout the day
thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.
Its poor if you live at Amersham I guess, but during the day (when I have
used it) its hardly fight for a seat time

And the TfL leaflet does emphasise that there are still the Chiltern
services, which are possibly a faster service for some destination choices?

A discussion elsewhere suggested some Chesham pax use Amersham at the
moment, because of the bias in the existing services, and they'd switch to
Chesham...

Paul S

wrote:
Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to
having just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?

It would have been more useful if you had given a Wikipedia reference or,
preferably, the URL of the LU press release on which Wikipedia based their
report. The latter is
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/8622.aspx

If you think that a total of 4 tph from Amersham (including Chiltern) is
insufficient, are you suggesting that London council tax payers should
subsidise an improved service to that Buckinghamshire town?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." wrote:
If you think that a total of 4 tph from Amersham (including Chiltern) is
insufficient, are you suggesting that London council tax payers should
subsidise an improved service to that Buckinghamshire town?

Its either the *london* underground or it isn't. All this who-pays-for-
what over county boundaries that only matter to failed wannabe
politicians in town halls is just petty and pathetic. Last time I
looked Epping wasn't in london either , perhaps the central line
should be cut back to a skeleton service too? If they're going to run
a metro service they should run a metro service , not pretend its some
country branch line.

B2003

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:32:16 +0100, "Frank Incense"
wrote:

According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham trains
per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout the day
thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.
Its poor if you live at Amersham I guess, but during the day (when I have
used it) its hardly fight for a seat time

Couldn't they order some of the S-stock with extra cabs and
portion-work it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In article
,
() wrote:

On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." wrote:
If you think that a total of 4 tph from Amersham (including Chiltern)
is insufficient, are you suggesting that London council tax payers
should subsidise an improved service to that Buckinghamshire town?

Its either the *london* underground or it isn't. All this who-pays-for-
what over county boundaries that only matter to failed wannabe
politicians in town halls is just petty and pathetic. Last time I
looked Epping wasn't in london either , perhaps the central line
should be cut back to a skeleton service too? If they're going to run
a metro service they should run a metro service , not pretend its some
country branch line.

Blame Edward Watkin.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." wrote:
If you think that a total of 4 tph from Amersham (including
Chiltern) is insufficient, are you suggesting that London council
tax payers should subsidise an improved service to that
Buckinghamshire town?

Its either the *london* underground or it isn't. All this
who-pays-for- what over county boundaries that only matter to failed
wannabe politicians in town halls is just petty and pathetic. Last
time I looked Epping wasn't in london either , perhaps the central
line should be cut back to a skeleton service too?

AFAIK Epping Forest Council subsidises the frequent service.

If they're going
to run a metro service they should run a metro service , not pretend
its some country branch line.

Maybe LU should run every Metro in the world, all paid for by London
ratepayers?

On Jul 21, 1:29*am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:
On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." wrote:
If you think that a total of 4 tph from Amersham (including
Chiltern) is insufficient, are you suggesting that London council
tax payers should subsidise an improved service to that
Buckinghamshire town?

Its either the *london* underground or it isn't. All this
who-pays-for- what over county boundaries that only matter to failed
wannabe politicians in town halls is just petty and pathetic. Last
time I looked Epping wasn't in london either , perhaps the central
line should be cut back to a skeleton service too?

AFAIK Epping Forest Council subsidises the frequent service.

If they're going
to run a metro service they should run a metro service , not pretend
its some country branch line.

Maybe LU should run every Metro in the world, all paid for by London
ratepayers?

If it was physically possible for all those metros to deliver workers
and punters to central London, there might be an argument.