Radical Rethink

[Hutch]

The O-i-K threw away a comment on the proposed S-stock specifications thread to the effect that with a compromise seating arrangements on the Amersham service that the good people of Bucks will migrate en masse to Chiltern Trains. That gave me a pause for thought.

Perhaps it is time to have a radical rethink about the operation of the longest part of the Met Main Line, move it out of the LUL network all together and pass it over to Chiltern to operate. Chiltern would take over exclusive use of the fast lines between Harrow and Watford South Junction and may even de-electrify all their new railway between Harrow and Amersham. All Met services would terminate at Watford Met (or even the Junction if the Croxley link ever gets built.).

All the Bucks customers who need to get to Baker Street and beyond would have to change to a fast Met service at Harrow. Uxbridge and Watford services could be augmented with the released capacity given to Chiltern.

Radical but possible?

[agoodcuppa]

hutch said:

Radical but possible?

Do Chiltern have the additional stock, drivers and other resources? What about additional stabling in London (yes I know about Wembley,but that pretty limited)?

[Deleted]

hutch said:

All the Bucks customers who need to get to Baker Street and beyond would have to change to a fast Met service at Harrow. Uxbridge and Watford services could be augmented with the released capacity given to Chiltern.

Radical but possible?

From what I hear of the stakeholder views, that would not be very popular at all. There is demand for rush hour Met trains to run direct between the Amersham branch and Aldgate. There is more pressure from vocal campaigners on LU to provide more direct trains as long as possible. So to suspend that altogether so every journey would involve a change at Harrow, would go against those wishes and would not be very welcome.

From a practical analysis, you'd lose access to Rickmansworth sidings and Rickmansworth train crew depot, which would need to be relocated to somewhere else on the north side of the Met - unless you had inefficient trips very early and late between Watford and Neasden depot just to cover first and last trains.

I think that the Met line as it is, is fairly suitable at the north end. Three branches means some flexibility in times of disruption. I think they could increase signalling capacity on that stretch of the line,as well as a few more stabling points.

The radical rethinks should be more focused on the other end of the line, where running to Aldgate means crossing over Circle and H+C tracks - and any slight delay snowballs easily - even outside peak hours where there are still loads of Circle and H+C trains. As well as Aldgate being a two platform terminus only.

[Deleted]

The biggest problem with the Met Main is the inefficient, outmoded and obsolete Passenger Service Agreement that controls train services at the shared stations. Once Chiltern and TfL are able to amend the existing agreement or create a new one, I believe that the timetable will be appropriately recast to provide the services that people want.

The second biggest problem is the aging infrastructure. A down avoiding line at Chorleywood, a flying junction at Chalfont and the complete resignalling of the fast lines from Harrow North to Mantles Wood, with all new signalling, interlockings and layouts at Watford South, Rickmansworth, Chalfont and Amersham would go a long way to improving reliability and allowing for the train service to be appropriately modified.

[mrjrt]

soultrain said:

From a practical analysis, you'd lose access to Rickmansworth sidings and Rickmansworth train crew depot, which would need to be relocated to somewhere else on the north side of the Met - unless you had inefficient trips very early and late between Watford and Neasden depot just to cover first and last trains.

Could always rebuild the former BR Croxley depot and use that site. Could also come in handy for the Bakerloo re-extension.

[Hutch]

OK so radicalism is required at the up end.

I think Chiltern – acknowledged as one of the best suppliers of rail services – deserves a City terminus in addition to Marylebone. This will be achieved by connecting with the Midland Mainline at West Hampstead as part of the proposed rebuild/interchange, or if that proves too difficult by a burrowing double connection to the Acton-Cricklewood (Dudding Hill) line at Neasdon. Transit via the Widened Lines would see the Buckinghamshire punters delivered to Moorgate without all that messing around at Harrow. Sorry about Aldgate but that’s a bit more expensive.

[meteorological]

I think that its is far more likely that Chiltern will withdraw from the Met altogether, they lose money on the Amersham run, Aylesbury Parkway station is being built to the north of the town to serve the Prescott Houses being built there and the intention is to have an east west rail link to Oxford, Winslow, MK, and Cambridge, this would then allow the Met to take over the Amersham Aylesbury line and leave Chiltern with the more profitable High Wycombe line.

I'll be the first on the list for the Mets Aylesbury Depot:)

Chiltern are consulting on not stopping at many LU stations at the moment so that would scupper any takeover by Chiltern.

[thc]

hutch said:

I think Chiltern – acknowledged as one of the best suppliers of rail services – deserves a City terminus in addition to Marylebone. This will be achieved by connecting with the Midland Mainline at West Hampstead as part of the proposed rebuild/interchange, or if that proves too difficult by a burrowing double connection to the Acton-Cricklewood (Dudding Hill) line at Neasdon.

Have you not seen Network Rail's Cross-London RUS? It makes absolutely no mention of passenger services over Acton-Dudding Hill; in fact, no mention of even upgrading for freight. And this from NR's most strategic document, which looks ahead to 2020. BAA floated the idea of using this line for Heathrow stoppers to St Pancras back in the 1990s but that went precisely nowhere even though they seemed to be prepared to throw lots of private money at it. Sorry but in conclusion I see absolutely no chance of your idea happening.

meteorological said:

I think that its is far more likely that Chiltern will withdraw from the Met altogether, they lose money on the Amersham run, Aylesbury Parkway station is being built to the north of the town to serve the Prescott Houses being built there and the intention is to have an east west rail link to Oxford, Winslow, MK, and Cambridge, this would then allow the Met to take over the Amersham Aylesbury line and leave Chiltern with the more profitable High Wycombe line.

At the risk of mixing my metaphors: sorry to pee on your chips but there's way too much pie-in-the-sky here. You and I will both be a long time dead before the Met ever again reaches Aylesbury as there's no way Chiltern will/can give up that route (it's in the Chiltern Passenger Service Requirement).

Despite several evaluations in recent years of reinstatement of the rail link between Oxford and Cambridge no case for rebuilding has yet been proven; yet another (although more limited) feasibility study is now underway. The best that EastWest Rail (the consortium of local authorities and other interested stakeholders) is currently hoping for is reinstatement of Oxford to Bedford, and this with extra Infrastructure Growth Fund money (the same money that's being used for AVP) for the MK/South Midlands Growth Area skewing investment away from other strategic and medium-sized public transport projects (apart from guided busways in Cambridgeshire - go figure... )

Apologies once again for spoiling the fun but when the powers-that-be can't even get a simple project like the Croxley Link right (fifty-odd years and counting) then there's no chance of the proposals being mentioned here ever seeing the light of day.

THC

[Hutch]

Have you not seen Network Rail's Cross-London RUS? It makes absolutely no mention of passenger services over Acton-Dudding Hill; in fact, no mention of even upgrading for freight. And this from NR's most strategic document, which looks ahead to 2020. BAA floated the idea of using this line for Heathrow stoppers to St Pancras back in the 1990s but that went precisely nowhere even though they seemed to be prepared to throw lots of private money at it. Sorry but in conclusion I see absolutely no chance of your idea happening

I’m sorry to appear cynical, but the lack of an entry in Network Rail’s strategic documentation might mean that the idea bears some merit

I seem to recall from another place in cyberspace where I lurk that the main problem with the BAA plan was the extremely low clearance under a bridge where the link to the Acton-Dudding Hill line left the Great Western Main Line. Without a major rebuild it could not accommodate the necessary 25kV overhead.

Having passed through the area around Neasdon South Junction just the other day, it appeared that a link could be forged even cheaper above ground through a largely derelict area and some industrial premises. It would be a lot cheaper that Crossrail which would also see the Met losing its services beyond Watford South Junction.

Just some thoughts …

[Deleted]

soultrain said:

From what I hear of the stakeholder views, that would not be very popular at all. There is demand for rush hour Met trains to run direct between the Amersham branch and Aldgate. There is more pressure from vocal campaigners on LU to provide more direct trains as long as possible. So to suspend that altogether so every journey would involve a change at Harrow, would go against those wishes and would not be very welcome.

You are quite correct with your comments. Most of the SB trains from Amersham in the morning peak go to Aldgate, including the first SB at 0538(?), which is always quite busy, even at that time of the day.

You also have to remember our friends in Chesham; if one or both of the through trains from the city are cancelled in the morning or evening peak, a lot of people are not happy, and on some occasions, it has caused quite heavy loadings on the shuttle, that then runs to fill the gap. Think 8 cars of A stock into 4 carsof A stock?!

So although it sounds like a good idea to let Chiltern have the met main, i dont think it would really be that practical as it sounds. If it was to go ahead, Chiltern would have to put in a rather big order for more Turbostars too!

[amershamsi]

the only problem i have with LU taking over the whole Met line up to Amersham is simply that it's annoying enough that NR ticket rules don't apply (can't have YPRC on singles, or buy tickets for any station not served by LU or a direct train (OK, maybe all of Chiltern's stations, but why). Also I can't buy a ticket from most NR stations to Amersham. I have a feeling a Southampton-Great Missenden return ticket with YPRC via NR would be cheaper than a Southampton-London return with YPRC and 2 zone 1-D singles on oyster if I wanted to get home from uni for a weekend.

The problems I'd have with Chiltern running the met main line, is that the trains aren't as nice (in terms of interior), and also, unless Amersham-Aylesbury and Harrow-Marylebone were electrified, would be diesel, which is a bit of a waste of electric rails between Harrow and Amersham. Another problem would be the lack of cross platform interchange with the Jubilee (assuming there would be one at West Hampstead), and that Baker Street is much more conveniant for onwards connections (unless Bakerloo line) than Marylebone.

[Ben]

I wouldnt worry about the train interiors. London Underground seem determined not to specifically cater for the long distance travler on the met with the 's' stock.

Someone will shoot me for this, but would it be possible to build a link from met to chiltern at roughly Lords station? That is it would be useful for fast met trains to use the chiltern line if they were doing an aylesbury run.

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

the only problem i have with LU taking over the whole Met line up to Amersham is simply that it's annoying enough that NR ticket rules don't apply (can't have YPRC on singles, or buy tickets for any station not served by LU or a direct train (OK, maybe all of Chiltern's stations, but why). Also I can't buy a ticket from most NR stations to Amersham. I have a feeling a Southampton-Great Missenden return ticket with YPRC via NR would be cheaper than a Southampton-London return with YPRC and 2 zone 1-D singles on oyster if I wanted to get home from uni for a weekend.

For a start LUL already runs to Amersham! If the line was to be taken over by chiltern, their tickets and fares would obviously come into force, as it would then be a NR line.

As for not being able to buy a ticket to Amersham, that seems a common problem for those passengers travelling from a NR station to something past Zone 6, as NR dont seem to realise that zones A-D exist! When I worked on the platforms up there, time and time again people turned up with like £40s of ticketk, but couldnt get out because the ticket wasnt valid there. I did feel guilty sending them to the excess fares, however thats life!

Then there is the whole different matter that LULs gates dont seem to like NR tickets!

[Oracle]

Then there is the whole different matter that LULs gates dont seem to like NR tickets!

It's no use! I have kept my mouth shut too long, but this posting has prompted me! I am sick to death of having problems with at least one of our travelcard tickets at LUL gates [and also Charing X Saturday] when we buy them off the very friendly guards on SWT trains at Ashurt New Forest. We keep having to appeal to the nice SAs to let one of us out with their pass because the darned barriers reject one/some of our Travelcards.

As regards Chiltern, don't forget that they signed up to a franchise and have their contract now to run the services that they do. Any suggestion of LU giving up the line to Amersham etc. would require a lot of legal manoeuvering.

[Deleted]

oracle said:

It's no use! I have kept my mouth shut too long, but this posting has prompted me! I am sick to death of having problems with at least one of our travelcard tickets at LUL gates [and also Charing X Saturday] when we buy them off the very friendly guards on SWT trains at Ashurt New Forest. We keep having to appeal to the nice SAs to let one of us out with their pass because the darned barriers reject one/some of our Travelcards.

Its a known problem that has gone on since day one! They reject the tickets with a code 13, which means you havnt paid enough, but of course you have! It is very annoying , particually where you get the tickets alot, as you have to keep swiping them through!

As for Chiltern taking over LU services on the met main, i doubt very much it will happen.

[amershamsi]

metapprentice said:

For a start LUL already runs to Amersham! If the line was to be taken over by chiltern, their tickets and fares would obviously come into force, as it would then be a NR line.

I meant continue running to Amersham/extend to Aylesbury and got confused myself.

hutch said:

The O-i-K threw away a comment on the proposed S-stock specifications thread to the effect that with a compromise seating arrangements on the Amersham service that the good people of Bucks will migrate en masse to Chiltern Trains. That gave me a pause for thought.

a large number of people from those stations prefer Chiltern's services anyway stating "comfort", which is odd as the trains are rather full pulling into Amersham, nevermind leaving, there's less standing room if you can't sit down, less leg room and so on.

there are better reasons to choose Chiltern - even though Marylebone has not very good onward connections, a walk to baker street is quicker than a met train. Also, due to direct Cheshams, the frequency is no better on the met, and the reverse journey in the evening is problematic, due to delays at the London end, the low frequency (chesham again) and more conflicts. Marylebone is nicer to wait at than Baker Street as well.

I think that s stock will swing the balance more towards Chiltern - less seats, less comfy seats, longitudinal seats, less standing space, etc will not be outweighed by faster, newer trains.

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

a large number of people from those stations prefer Chiltern's services anyway stating "comfort", which is odd as the trains are rather full pulling into Amersham, nevermind leaving, there's less standing room if you can't sit down, less leg room and so on.

Off Peak, yes. In the Peak Hours, more people will take the through Aldgate services that the met provides. A lot of city workers live out on the met main, which would probably cause a problem if the met was to withdraw from the Amersham road.

amershamsi said:

there are better reasons to choose Chiltern - even though Marylebone has not very good onward connections, a walk to baker street is quicker than a met train.

Only if the Chiltern is due within minutes of your arrival at the station. I have seen people wait 25 mins, after missing one, for a Chiltern, even though 3 mets have gone SB. In that situation, the met is then quicker.

amershamsi said:

Also, due to direct Cheshams, the frequency is no better on the met, and the reverse journey in the evening is problematic, due to delays at the London end, the low frequency (chesham again) and more conflicts. Marylebone is nicer to wait at than Baker Street as well.

In fairness you are not going to get a more frequent Chesham service than what you already have. It takes about 25 mins to do Chalfont to Chesham and back, and that is not taking into account a layover of more than 2 mins at Chesham.

Again, I would rather get the met if i have just missed a chiltern, as a 30 minute wait does soon get a bit tedious.

[amershamsi]

metapprentice said:

amershamsi said:

a large number of people from those stations prefer Chiltern's services anyway stating "comfort", which is odd as the trains are rather full pulling into Amersham, nevermind leaving, there's less standing room if you can't sit down, less leg room and so on.

Off Peak, yes. In the Peak Hours, more people will take the through Aldgate services that the met provides. A lot of city workers live out on the met main, which would probably cause a problem if the met was to withdraw from the Amersham road.

even in peak hours - hence all the fuss about Chiltern cutting peak trains. It may be more pronunced off-peak when less people need to go to the city, however peak hour commuters not heading for met line stations do take chilterns out of preference.

Only if the Chiltern is due within minutes of your arrival at the station. I have seen people wait 25 mins, after missing one, for a Chiltern, even though 3 mets have gone SB. In that situation, the met is then quicker.

yes, however most people can read a timetable so choose to arrive just before a chiltern arrives (or in my case, the reverse!) - those people are just testiment to the fact that out here in the sticks people would much rather use Chiltern as opposed to the met, even to the point of being redicilously stupid about it.

amershamsi said:

Also, due to direct Cheshams, the frequency is no better on the met, and the reverse journey in the evening is problematic, due to delays at the London end, the low frequency (chesham again) and more conflicts. Marylebone is nicer to wait at than Baker Street as well.

In fairness you are not going to get a more frequent Chesham service than what you already have. It takes about 25 mins to do Chalfont to Chesham and back, and that is not taking into account a layover of more than 2 mins at Chesham.

I don't want more frequent Chesham trains - I was bemoaning the fact that they steal paths from Amersham trains, making it only 2tph met in peaks. I was refering to the direct Chesham trains, not the shuttle (which they could run to Amersham in the peaks to try and give some relief to the poor service)

Again, I would rather get the met if i have just missed a chiltern, as a 30 minute wait does soon get a bit tedious.

of course, but people aim to get Chilterns and the met is a "back up service" if they miss it. Also don't forget that Amersham has the same wait in peak hours.

[greatplum]

Surely you couldn't have Chiltern taking over the Met Main - there isn't space at Marylebone... even with the 2 new platforms...

[amershamsi]

you could always take it off the map, have Chiltern run the services and stations, have NR fares apply and run them into the two terminating platforms at Baker Street.

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

however peak hour commuters not heading for met line stations do take chilterns out of preference.

I would tend to disagree with that statement. Although alot of people get on the Chilterns, when i worked on the platform at Amersham and Ricky, a fair few still waited for met line services, as I outlined earlier in the thread, a lot of people travel down the city.

amershamsi said:

those people are just testiment to the fact that out here in the sticks people would much rather use Chiltern as opposed to the met, even to the point of being redicilously stupid about it.

Again, I disagree sorry! When I have told people about the wait they have, or told them train times when they have asked, the statement that always came back was "well of course Chiltern is quicker". Passengers even travelling only as far as Harrow would wait for the Chiltern, because it is supposidly quicker! I rest my case!

amershamsi said:

I don't want more frequent Chesham trains - I was bemoaning the fact that they steal paths from Amersham trains, making it only 2tph met in peaks. I was refering to the direct Chesham trains, not the shuttle (which they could run to Amersham in the peaks to try and give some relief to the poor service)

They dont steal paths for Amersham services, non stopping Chiltern Trains do! I was actually referring to any train that travels between Chalfont and Chesham, and not neccessarily the shuttle, because beleive it or not, the journey time is the same!

amershamsi said:

Also don't forget that Amersham has the same wait in peak hours.

I am quite aware of that, seeing as I am a signal operator at Amersham!

greatplum said:

Surely you couldn't have Chiltern taking over the Met Main - there isn't space at Marylebone... even with the 2 new platforms...

You are quite correct. As for Chilterns going into Baker Street, I some how dont think so!

[Hutch]

As for Chilterns going into Baker Street, I some how dont think so!

Now there's a thought! All we have to do is make them "consume their own smoke" or something like that - just like when steam engines made the trip.

[Ben]

I think he meant chiltern having a small fleet of electric trains to run into Baker Street. The Mat main services could then be rebranded as these.

[Deleted]

benedict said:

I think he meant chiltern having a small fleet of electric trains to run into Baker Street. The Mat main services could then be rebranded as these.

What would that achieve, as if that was the case, you may as well leave it as it is at the moment??

[amershamsi]

metapprentice said:

amershamsi said:

however peak hour commuters not heading for met line stations do take chilterns out of preference.

I would tend to disagree with that statement. Although alot of people get on the Chilterns, when i worked on the platform at Amersham and Ricky, a fair few still waited for met line services, as I outlined earlier in the thread, a lot of people travel down the city.

I did say "not heading for met line stations" seeing as most of the city is within an easy walk of Farringdon - Aldgate, city pax would of course take the met. those that aren't going to the city tend to take Chilterns. you're disagreeing with me, then saying the same thing.

Again, I disagree sorry! When I have told people about the wait they have, or told them train times when they have asked, the statement that always came back was "well of course Chiltern is quicker". Passengers even travelling only as far as Harrow would wait for the Chiltern, because it is supposidly quicker! I rest my case!

you're agreeing with me - people at Amersham, to the point of stupidity, wait for Chilterns as they prefer them. Also Amersham-Harrow is quicker on a Chiltern - no stop at Moor Park, though it makes little difference!

They dont steal paths for Amersham services, non stopping Chiltern Trains do! I was actually referring to any train that travels between Chalfont and Chesham, and not neccessarily the shuttle, because beleive it or not, the journey time is the same!

well duh about shuttle and through trains taking the same time. however surely chesham through trains do take paths away from Amersham trains - if there weren't Chesham directs, wouldn't you agree that there'll be more Amersham trains? Chiltern non-stoppers take paths too (they'll be reduced if chiltern take over the met main too - if they get 100% of the money, they will actually pick up the pax - the reason that Amersham is non-stopped at the moment is so that Chiltern trains don't get loaded with passengers who are effectively only paying chiltern some of the money!)

metapprentice said:

benedict said:

I think he meant chiltern having a small fleet of electric trains to run into Baker Street. The Mat main services could then be rebranded as these.

What would that achieve, as if that was the case, you may as well leave it as it is at the moment??

the ability to buy tickets for places that aren't London (or served by Chiltern), the ability to get railcard discounts, OK, they are little things, and could easily be obtained a different way, like by having joint ticket offices at stations with NR and LU trains, however they matter. I don't actually want Chiltern to run the Met main (at least while A stock is running - S stock I'm not so sure about yet - it doesn't look that comfy), I gave a solution to the Marylebone problem. I'd much rather see joint ticket offices, so that I can, if just going through London, get an NR ticket to wherever, and get my 1/3rd off the whole route, not just the bit going out of London. Also, things like group save, where 4 go for the price of two, and other such NR deals that LU don't do.

with YPRC, Great Missenden - Southampton Airport CDR costs £22.70 and an Amersham - Z1 oyster off-peak single, a Waterloo - Southampton Airport CDR and a Z1-Amersham oyster off-peak single costs £22.75 - more than from Missenden, and with the added hassle of having to buy a ticket at Waterloo. OK it's 5p more, but it's a disgrace that for a shorter journey I have to pay more and have no through ticket, meaning that i have to get one halfway through my journey!

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

I did say "not heading for met line stations" seeing as most of the city is within an easy walk of Farringdon - Aldgate, city pax would of course take the met. those that aren't going to the city tend to take Chilterns.

However the number of passengers that do not take the chiltern is more than those that do. To be honest, when the Chilterns arrive at Amersham, on most occasions, they are already full, or at least standing room only.

amershamsi said:

you're disagreeing with me, then saying the same thing.
you're agreeing with me - people at Amersham, to the point of stupidity, wait for Chilterns as they prefer them. Also Amersham-Harrow is quicker on a Chiltern - no stop at Moor Park, though it makes little difference!

I am not agreeing with you, but again i dont want to start an arguement over that! The chiltern journey to Harrow is no quicker if you let a met train go south, which is what a lot of people do. The ONLY reason they do that is because they think it is QUICKER, which then it isnt. I have seen people that are in a mad rush to get to Harrow, and they will then wait 15 - 20 mins for a Chiltern as they think it somehow overtakes everything and gets to Harrow within a couple of minutes.

amershamsi said:

well duh about shuttle and through trains taking the same time.

I was referring to any train that travels between Chalfont and Chesham, so you have to agree that doesnt just include the shuttle does it?!

amershamsi said:

however surely chesham through trains do take paths away from Amersham trains

Between Aldgate and Baker Street, maybe. The reason that there are not more Amersham services is, as i outlined earlier, and that is because there are far more Chiltern Services at that time of the day.

amershamsi said:

if there weren't Chesham directs, wouldn't you agree that there'll be more Amersham trains?

Yes.

amershamsi said:

the ability to buy tickets for places that aren't London (or served by Chiltern),

You can do that now.

[Oracle]

I finally managed to find the forum that I trawled through some time back:

www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb/index.php?showforum=10

It is interesting reading what the actual punters who use Chiltern and Met services have to say. I was entranced, if I may put it that way, that when CR's service one evening flopped onto its belly, punters were waiting at H-o-t-H P1, a train stopped but the driver would not open the doors as it was a 'non-stopper' and then went off leaving angry punters behind. There must have been, as was suggested on the forum, a reason for this but it hardly gives a good impression. There was I am sure a perfectly valid reason why, but the fare-payers won't appreciate it. If the justification was that the train was overly-long for certain platforms, then regrettably the same practice as exercised by SWT at my local station, plus Beaulieu Road, New Milton, Clapham Junction, et al of only opening the doors in the first five coaches cannot be undertaken by CR.

My experience is zero on the Amersham area users' circumstances, though when I worked off Piccadilly 1974-81 and commuted in on the Picc, my boss caught the Bakerloo to Marylebone then 'classic' DMUs to High Wycombe. He used to say that the trains were always full, and he could only get a seat in the Guard's compartment!

[amershamsi]

metapprentice said:

I am not agreeing with you, but again i dont want to start an arguement over that! The chiltern journey to Harrow is no quicker if you let a met train go south, which is what a lot of people do. The ONLY reason they do that is because they think it is QUICKER, which then it isnt. I have seen people that are in a mad rush to get to Harrow, and they will then wait 15 - 20 mins for a Chiltern as they think it somehow overtakes everything and gets to Harrow within a couple of minutes.

which is exactly my point - irrational preference for chiltern. Chilterns ARE quicker between Amersham and Harrow, however the difference is minimal (couple of seconds), and unless you are getting a train out of Marylebone, there's no time advantage in waiting the 10 minutes for the Chiltern. I never said it was worth waiting for a chiltern - I think my words were "Irrational preference of Chiltern" or words to that effect. People do prefer Chiltern, which is what i said, and what you have said. Whether it's a sensible reason or not doesn't come into it! I cannot see where the disagreement is!

I actually deliberately wait for a Met, when time isn't of the essence, as I feel it's worth ten minutes of my time to have a quieter, more spacious and comfy train and easier onward interchange - I have the opposite of these people - an irrational preference for the met, though I haven't fallen for a false economy.

I was referring to any train that travels between Chalfont and Chesham, so you have to agree that doesnt just include the shuttle does it?!

hence what i said - i agreed with you yet you decided I didn't. That I never said it took longer, and you assumed i had, but doesn't come into it. I agree with you here - shuttle and through trains both take exactly the same amount of time to do chalfont-chesham-chalfont. this covers all trains, not just the shuttle, just like you said, and just like I said - where did I say the opposite?

Between Aldgate and Baker Street, maybe. The reason that there are not more Amersham services is, as i outlined earlier, and that is because there are far more Chiltern Services at that time of the day.

if there weren't Chesham directs, wouldn't you agree that there'll be more Amersham trains?

Yes.

so Chesham through trains don't take any paths off Amersham through trains, it's the Chilterns, dispite if the through Cheshams were replaced by shuttles, the number of Amersham trains would increase (what you said by "yes". I really don't understand how this works - I know that the extra Chilterns take paths as well as through Cheshams, however that the through Cheshams stop there being more Amershams, surely that is taking up paths that Amershams can use? Between chalfont and aldgate, chesham and amersham trains use the same track, therefore the chesham train is using a path that an amersham could use, stealing it's path!

amershamsi said:

the ability to buy tickets for places that aren't London (or served by Chiltern),

You can do that now. [/quote]the reverse is definitely impossible - Amersham isn't on NR computers - you can buy in advance (maybe), but that's all, and I've tried to get tickets to Southampton at Chalfont and failed. I've got YPRC discount on a travelcard, and that's it really (and i had to explain that this was allowed at Euston, though Amersham and Chalfont (if there's someone there) do know). Anyway, the ticket prices on the NR site for Amersham is basically a z1-6D travelcard, plus any onward boundary 6-destination - it's even more expensive than the 5p more expensive price, because NR can only do travelcards, not singles/returns to/from Amersham, other than to places with direct trains (and maybe other Chiltern stations).

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

which is exactly my point - irrational preference for chiltern. Chilterns ARE quicker between Amersham and Harrow, however the difference is minimal (couple of seconds), and unless you are getting a train out of Marylebone, there's no time advantage in waiting the 10 minutes for the Chiltern.

Not quite. TfL's platform-side time-to-station posters state that a Chiltern train between Harrow and Rickmansworth takes about 11 minutes; the same fast Met service takes about 15. Four minutes is a long time on a high-frequency metro service.