|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 8, 2008 16:04:17 GMT
Wil each branch (Uxbridge, Amersham, Watford, Chesham shuttle) get an equal share of the stock?
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 8, 2008 19:38:15 GMT
They don't get an "equal" share now. The Amersham off-peak service has 8 trains - try fitting that many down the Chesham branch.
Seriously though, the Met will be given their "share" of stock - however many trains that has been decided - and the service will be run using them - and leaving a few spare trains in depot for use when trains become defective.
All services, with the exception of the Chesham shuttle, are run as one line unit. Off-peak trains are generally dedicated to each of the services, and run up and down just on their "own" routes. During the peaks, and especially following the evening peak, trains drift from their usual services, and form services to the opposite destinations.
So for example, while train 434 may be an off-peak Uxbridge-Aldgate service, during the peak it may form a Baker Street-Watford or Aldgate-Amersham service. After the evening peak it may stable in depot early evening, or continue to run on any of the branches.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 8, 2008 21:17:01 GMT
They don't get an "equal" share now. The Amersham off-peak service has 8 trains - try fitting that many down the Chesham branch. try half that number... Amersham is 4tph off peak and ~2tph peak on the Met (and 2tph off peak and ~1tph peak on the Chilterns) Did you mean Uxbridge? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Aug 9, 2008 0:00:30 GMT
Amersham does have 8 trains on the service at 4tph! 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, ,416, 417/
Watford has 440-447, 450-452
Uxbridge has 420-427, 430-435 and Chesham has 407.
|
|
|
|
Post by neasdena60 on Aug 9, 2008 7:45:06 GMT
the chesham shuttle, the future does not look good.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Aug 9, 2008 9:52:11 GMT
Why do you say that?
AIUI, the plan is to run Chesham trains straight through to Baker Street - though admittedly at the expense of Amersham services.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 9, 2008 13:13:41 GMT
There are a couple of "theories" regarding Chesham.
One is a to have every other Baker Street-Amersham divert to Chesham - Chesham gains a through service and Amersham doesn't really lose that much (there's generally fewer than half a dozen people on the train from Chalfont to Amersham that runs 10 minutes behind the Amersham in front.)
Another theory is to run a Watford-Chesham service. Quite a nice idea really, taking full advantage of the north curve at Watford Junctions, and giving a useful but self-contained service between the two termini.
It's all because the bay road at Chalfont can only accomodate 4 cars and the new stock will be 8 cars (with currently no option to run 4 cars).
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 9, 2008 21:14:45 GMT
Another theory is to run a Watford-Chesham service. Quite a nice idea really, taking full advantage of the north curve at Watford Junctions, and giving a useful but self-contained service between the two termini. Will that be to the current Watford station, or along the ex-LMS rails to Watford Junction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2008 21:41:05 GMT
Another theory is to run a Watford-Chesham service. Quite a nice idea really, taking full advantage of the north curve at Watford Junctions, and giving a useful but self-contained service between the two termini. Will that be to the current Watford station, or along the ex-LMS rails to Watford Junction? It will be to the current Watford station most likely tho a future Chesham to watford Junction would be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 10, 2008 19:08:12 GMT
Will that be to the current Watford station, or along the ex-LMS rails to Watford Junction? As I was writing above, part of me thought I should make it clear I meant "our" Watford Junctions (between Moor Park, Ricky and Croxley) as opposed to "their" Watford Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by neasdena60 on Aug 11, 2008 20:24:24 GMT
Why do you say that? AIUI, the plan is to run Chesham trains straight through to Baker Street - though admittedly at the expense of Amersham services. the days of one unit or a train of brand new stock just going to and from chesham is almost over. tfl even tried to off load the branch to chiltern railways, who wanted non of it. indeed the current plan is to move two amersham peak services to chesham, but this leads to over crowding on the remaining amersham trains and the regulator is less than pleased with this idea. but london travel watch want new chesham london trains brought in, to save the amersham trains being moved . there is more in the rail magazine for aug. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 11, 2008 20:43:39 GMT
indeed the current plan is to move two amersham peak services to chesham, but this leads to over crowding on the remaining amersham trains and the regulator is less than pleased with this idea. you mean off peak - diverting two peak trains would mean that you leave Amersham with no Met trains (and only 1tph) and also have a crash somewhere on the Chesham branch, as 15 minutes allows for no dwell time at Chesham (if you stepped back at Chesham, or brought back a two platform station, then you could run 3tph easy enough, though 4 is perhaps a bit too far, as it takes 7 or 8 minutes to do the Chalfont-Chesham route). |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Aug 12, 2008 8:25:40 GMT
I think that sending half of the Amersham trains to Chesham wouldn't matter, because I don't think trains between Chalfont and Amersham are that busy. I heard that Chesham to Watford wouldn't work because they would get in the way of other trains. Aren't more trains going to be run on the Met when the S stock in running?
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 12, 2008 11:34:39 GMT
Chalfont-Amersham is busy at peak times (and a lot of people between the two stations drive to Chalfont to make us of the higher frequency of trains - by moving the Amersham trains to Chesham that would move all those with cars wanting to go shopping in London, or whatever to Chalfont) and also around 4, when there's lots of homeward commuting from the two Challoners schools - the girls school in Chalfont, with a lot of people who go there and live in Amersham, and more so the boys school in Amersham, with a lot of people who go there and live in Chalfont, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth, Moor Park, Pinner, Harrow, etc. There must be about 200 station entries in that short time.
When S stock allows 8tph or whatever to the Met main, then Amersham might as well get 6 of them, though having 2 of them going to Watford would be a better use of them, than London IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 12, 2008 12:02:56 GMT
One is a to have every other Baker Street-Amersham divert to Chesham - Chesham gains a through service and Amersham doesn't really lose that much (there's generally fewer than half a dozen people on the train from Chalfont to Amersham that runs 10 minutes behind the Amersham in front.) That's what I thought I said anyway, so how come the panic about 1tph and changed commuter habits  Amersham currently sees 4 Met and 2 Chiltern trains per hour off peak. And when you speak of "peaks" then the Chesham branch is served by "other" trains now, and not the shuttle. So off peak, the Met Amersham trains which leave Baker Street 10 minutes behind the preceding Amersham, the ones which are very lightly loaded by Chalfont, would be the ones to go to Chesham. This gives a 30 minute service - which is the same frequency as the shuttle gives now. During the peak, Amersham will have its share of trains (probably similar to now) and Chesham will have its trains. No great loss of service to Amersham. Bonus direct London service for Chesham (which is what they wanted). No great cascades of commuters driving from Amersham to Chesham because that's where the trains are. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 12, 2008 17:31:19 GMT
That's what I thought I said anyway, so how come the panic about 1tph and changed commuter habits where was that? 1tph was only mentioned wrt to the Chiltern peak service from Amersham IIRC, the changed (no mention of commuters - their pattern won't change: they already drive to Chalfont due to lack of Amersham trains in the peaks) habits would just be a repeat of what already happens in the peak, when only 2 met trains go from Amersham, in the off-peak.other than around 4pm... and then only because those people who would go from Amersham but have cars will drive to Chalfont (many do anyway to save a bit of money).no one's said Amersham to Chesham - I've said Amersham to Chalfont. It already happens at peak times when through-Chesham trains cut Amersham service and basically cutting the off-peak service to the peak service will just make it happen off-peak as well. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 12, 2008 18:50:03 GMT
I quoted myself and wrote what I wrote because it appeared that many of the points I answered in my original post were ignored. A bit like those of my last post.
The peak service should be totally set aside from that which is provided (proposed) for the rest of the day. During the peak there are altered service patterns, many Chilterns non-stop, Chesham already has a through service. It is the off-peak that is (or I thought was) being brought into question.
If people already drive to Chalfont, then they will see no change (based on current theories) to their service, except that every other train off-peak will come off the branch (if that service is adopted.)
I made the comment at the end of my post as a simple quip and not one based on actual customer flows.
I always find it very ironic that when talk of the Circle Line being axed is mentioned, there are oohs, and aahs and lots of constructive fors and againsts. Table the same discussions about services north of Moor Park and goodness me it's like laying your head on the block.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 21:21:54 GMT
"Another theory is to run a Watford-Chesham service. Quite a nice idea really, taking full advantage of the north curve at Watford Junctions, and giving a useful but self-contained service between the two termini."
Don't know where this theory has come from !?!
1.) Consider terminal capacity at Watford
2.) Consider conflictions at Watford N Junc vs the 6 t.p.h service from Ricky (and north of) to London
3.) In order to maintain an off peak 2 t.p.h to Chesham, this service would require 3 train sets and crews all day, effectively another ten / dozen or so train ops = £500/600k p/a for very little customer benefit and 3 train sets that may not exist or could be far better utilised elsewhere!
|
|
|
|
Post by tubedstock on Aug 14, 2008 7:36:11 GMT
When is the first S Stock actually expected to be completed and/or delivered? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 14, 2008 9:39:41 GMT
Don't know where this theory has come from !?! 1.) Consider terminal capacity at Watford 2.) Consider conflictions at Watford N Junc vs the 6 t.p.h service from Ricky (and north of) to London 3.) In order to maintain an off peak 2 t.p.h to Chesham, this service would require 3 train sets and crews all day, effectively another ten / dozen or so train ops = £500/600k p/a for very little customer benefit and 3 train sets that may not exist or could be far better utilised elsewhere! I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is one of a number of suggestions and is (apparently) undergoing serious consideration. Careful timetabling can easily ensure no conflicts - if we can timetable a service across Aldgate junctions, Watford Junctions are more or less a doddle. If such a service came into being, maybe the planning that has been looked into for the other option (every other Amersham to Chesham) could be used - in that Amersham may lose that "extra" service on either plan. In this case, the reduction in Amershams gives you the extra drivers and trains needed. Of course, I can only go on what I have heard discussed. Being merely a controller (and hopefully future controller) of such services, I would not for one minute think I would be in the consultation process. |
|
|
|
Post by neasdena60 on Aug 14, 2008 19:05:40 GMT
When is the first S Stock actually expected to be completed and/or delivered? the first test train ( T S1 ) will be at neasden easter 2009. we have seen photos of the first motor cars being loaded down onto their trucks. they look superb. the roll out date depends on testing T S 1, and T S 2 ( this train metronet keeps for training the other returns to derby) . their will be small delays, but dont believe the the rumours, they are very much on track. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Aug 14, 2008 20:37:31 GMT
they are very much on track  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2008 21:47:28 GMT
"I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is one of a number of suggestions and is (apparently) undergoing serious consideration.
Careful timetabling can easily ensure no conflicts - if we can timetable a service across Aldgate junctions, Watford Junctions are more or less a doddle.
If such a service came into being, maybe the planning that has been looked into for the other option (every other Amersham to Chesham) could be used - in that Amersham may lose that "extra" service on either plan.
In this case, the reduction in Amershams gives you the extra drivers and trains needed."
This option really isn't being considered - honest !!!
The whole idea of moving 2 Amershams to Chesham is to still provide a 6 tph service from Chalfont/Ricky to London
Sending the 2 tph ex Chesham to Watford doesn't serve this purpose at all!
And this doesn't answer my point regarding terminal capacity at Watford, to run a Chesham - Watford service would require Watford - Baker St layovers to drop to 8 minutes and with 8 minutes at Baker Street this is not robust enough on such a service in terms of recovery.
Also timetabling trains through Watford North Junction is very differnt to the Aldgates. Timings at the Aldgates are based upon the same speed being applied to all types of stock/movements
At Watford North Junction it is a case of slow moving trains to/from NC against 2 different faster moving stock types on the main line form Ricky to Moor Park (albeit I expect the perfomance of S vs 165 to be far better than A's)
Anything is possible, but don't dismiss WNJ as 'easy to timetable' compared to the Aldgates!
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Aug 15, 2008 8:01:57 GMT
the roll out date depends on testing T S 1, and T S 2 ( this train metronet keeps for training the other returns to derby) . I thought that both pre-production S stock trains would go back to Derby. Both pre-production 09TS will. |
|
|
|
Post by neasdena60 on Aug 15, 2008 8:07:09 GMT
the roll out date depends on testing T S 1, and T S 2 ( this train metronet keeps for training the other returns to derby) . I thought that both pre-production S stock trains would go back to Derby. Both pre-production 09TS will. one has to remain for staff training, ie lifting / exam training with the staff from derby on site, training metronet staff, with in the new depot. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 15, 2008 8:59:03 GMT
Also timetabling trains through Watford North Junction is very differnt to the Aldgates. Timings at the Aldgates are based upon the same speed being applied to all types of stock/movements At Watford North Junction it is a case of slow moving trains to/from NC against 2 different faster moving stock types on the main line form Ricky to Moor Park (albeit I expect the perfomance of S vs 165 to be far better than A's) Anything is possible, but don't dismiss WNJ as 'easy to timetable' compared to the Aldgates! And therein lies one of the problems with Aldgate (and I should know as I spent long enough studying it in relation to the software changes there.) All trains are given the same amount of time, and yet 3 different types of rolling stock pass through the area, with different abilities to match the timetable - particularly with A-stock. This will become a thing of the past once S-stock is with us on all 3 lines. In just the same way, as you say, Watford Junctions sees differing rolling stock and speed limits - and also to begin with, a much less frequent service than at Aldgate. As for Watford turn-round time, why must all the recovery be lumped in there with huge reversing times? Yes it suits average late-running, and means you generally recover very quickly after average peaks, but as with now, if you're running right-time, Watford is a big no no for reversing anything else. So maybe a balance could be achieved to move some of this recovery to locations such as Harrow. But in any case, as you say, the option is not being considered, so here endeth the conversation. I will move it back to the "No" list - on the ever-changing "Sheet of Rumours, Theories and Contra-theories With Regard to S-stock and the SSL Upgrades." If any solid information is forthcoming (apart from denials that things are happening) it would be useful, as controllers are a regular contact point for those outside seeking such information - particularly when staff visit the control rooms (as Train Operators do regularly now). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2008 15:25:32 GMT
Huge reversing times at Watford suits drivers because it's the only time we get to take a breather so the longer the better. Also if we are running late and want to finish/meal relief, a quick call to the signaller and ask for a quick turnaround suits everyone.
Chesham Watford service is really a no-goer because to keep the 10 minute service to Watford AND a Chesham service you would need an extra platform at Watford.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2008 15:32:15 GMT
To add, the extra 100 drivers needed for the S Stock, is that ALL depots or just the Met? Will top speed for the line be increased to 60? If it will be, I can see where the extra drivers will be needed, but only on the outer most reaches of each line. The central zone one area, max-speed will still be the same but with quicker acceleration of the S stock you might be able to squeeze and extra train per hour.
|
|
