DOCSLIB.ORG

METROPOLITAN LINE TIMETABLE CHANGES - SEPTEMBER 2003 Contact Officer: Gill Gowing 01494 732051

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
METROPOLITAN LINE TIMETABLE CHANGES - SEPTEMBER 2003 Contact Officer: Gill Gowing 01494 732051 agenda item : 6 Chiltern Local Committee 17 July 2002 CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL EXECUTIVE - 16 JULY 2002 Background Papers, if any, are specified at the end of the Report METROPOLITAN LINE TIMETABLE CHANGES - SEPTEMBER 2003 Contact Officer: Gill Gowing 01494 732051 Matter for Consideration 1 To respond to the consultation on the proposed timetable changes for September 2003, which affect both the Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Railways. Implications (i) Not a key decision (ii)Not in the Forward Plan Financial Implications None Legal Implications None Report 2 Chesham Town Council hosted a London Underground Limited (LUL) and Chiltern Railways consultation meeting to discuss plans for Metropolitan Line timetable changes for 2003. These changes have a knock on impact on Chiltern Railways timetable, hence their presence at the meeting. Key points 3 In the presentation by London Underground the following key points were made: • In any changes the objective is to constantly review services in order to minimise customer journey time. • 24 month change process timetable, so currently looking at changes for September 2003. agenda item : 6 Chiltern Local Committee 17 July 2002 • No significant changes proposed for the Metropolitan line in September 2002, but changes to Circle and District Line scheduling is anticipated to significantly benefit the Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Railways - due to performance problems on the Circle Line in particular causing performance problems elsewhere. • Chesham Shuttle times have been altered to reduce the gap between services, in response to previous consultation meeting and survey of early morning users. • September 2003 changes focus on the Metropolitan Line. Two options have been developed for the peak services. London Underground is committed to retaining the Chesham link These are the only options possible within the current infrastructure limits (single track and rolling stock availability). Peak Service Options as described by LUL and Chiltern Railways 4 Option 1 Run 2 through trains to Chesham with a shuttle service otherwise. Pros Continues to provide an-interchange option to the City Cons Remains a 34-minute interval for the service pattern to work at the junctions Difficult to improve connections to Chiltern Railways. 5 Option 2 Remove through trains to Chesham and provide all-day shuttle service. Pros Could have departures from Chesham every 22-24 minutes Provide opportunity to have more fast trains at Amersham with more even intervals Could integrate better with Chiltern Railways Cons Forces an interchange at Chalfont for Chesham customers 6 LUL advised at the end of the meeting that they wished for a response by the end of June. They were advised that this would not be possible since there was no available meeting of the Council to consider the proposals. 7 The immediate reaction from the majority of those present at the meeting - predominately Chesham Town Councillors, although some were also District agenda item : 6 Chiltern Local Committee 17 July 2002 and/or County Members, was strong support for Option 1 since this option retained the through trains to Chesham. 8 Chiltern Railways urged the meeting not to reject Option 2 out of hand, since it did significantly improve the connection from Chesham with Chiltern Railways. A survey of early morning shuttle users had identified this as a priority. The waterfall diagrams which will be displayed at the meeting illustrate in graphic form how this is achieved. 9 The continuing deterioration of the Metropolitan Line service, particularly in terms of the quality of the ride compared with that of Chiltern Railways, may be encouraging people to travel by car to Amersham and/or Little Chalfont to catch the Chiltern Railways trains. Certainly the use of the car parks at Chesham, Amersham and Little Chalfont indicate that this may be occurring. 10 It is considered that unless it can be demonstrated that Option 2 would be likely to result in the increased use of Chesham Station, Option 1 should be preferred. In order to assess whether Option 2 would make Chesham more, rather than less attractive, further work on existing and future travel preferences needs to be undertaken, and the impacts of these preferences assessed for all modes of transport between Chesham, Amersham and Little Chalfont. 11 In assessing the impact of Option 2, consideration should be given to whether Chiltern Railways could increase the number of stops at Chalfont and Latimer station. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That further work be undertaken on travel preferences and the associated impact on all modes of travel prior to any decision on the Options being taken. 2. The Council considers the Chesham through train at peak times to be a valued service for local residents, and only if it can be clearly demonstrated that Option 2 would result in significantly more passengers, (over and above any projected growth in rail usage) using Chesham Station than at present, would the Council be willing to support Option 2. 3. The Council welcomes London Underground's stated commitment to retain the Chesham Link, Background Papers: agenda item : 6 Chiltern Local Committee 17 July 2002 COMMENT FROM BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL The County Council had received no information from London Underground Ltd (LUL) on their proposals for changes to services on the Chesham branch. This has been taken up with the company and an outline of the proposals has now been received. Initial discussions with the principal user groups representing travellers on the branch line suggest that the majority of people travelling between Chesham and Central London tend to change to Chiltern Railways' services at Chalfont & Latimer rather than continue to London by the slower Metropolitan Line trains. Further information is awaited from the Amersham & Aylesbury Rail User Group before a response can be made to LUL. JOHN HODGKINS PASSENGER TRANSPORT MANAGER .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--History History 2016 Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945 Danielle K. Dodson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.339 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Dodson, Danielle K., "Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945" (2016). Theses and Dissertations--History. 40. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/history_etds/40 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--History by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Capacity Study Update
    Chiltern & South Bucks Local Plan 2036 Settlement Capacity Study Page 0 of 122 Chiltern & South Bucks Local Plan 2036 Settlement Capacity Study Introduction Local authorities are encouraged by Paragraph 65 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas as part of their strategic policies. This is to enable neighbourhood plans to provide sufficient housing sites to meet their expected allocation. All currently-designated neighbourhood areas in Chiltern and South Bucks Districts share their boundaries with parish boundaries. It is anticipated that any future designations will also be for town council or parish council areas rather than for areas smaller or larger than these. The purpose of this study is to calculate required housing numbers for each parish within Chiltern and South Bucks. The Planning Practice Guidance1 confirms that there is no set methodology available for doing this, stating “the general policy making process already undertaken by local authorities can continue to be used to direct development requirements and balance needs and protections by taking into consideration relevant policies such as the spatial strategy, evidence such as the Housing and economic land availability assessment, and the characteristics of the neighbourhood area, including its population and role in providing services. In setting requirements for housing in designated neighbourhood areas, plan-making authorities should consider the areas or assets of particular importance (as set out in paragraph 11, footnote 6), which may restrict the scale, type or distribution of development in a neighbourhood plan area”. The NPPF requires the housing requirement figure for a neighbourhood area to reflect the Local Plan’s overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years Ago – a Postscript
    50 YEARS AGO – A POSTSCRIPT METROPOLITAN MODERNISATION Whilst some of us will recall the late-1950s and early 1960s as the period “when it all happened”, there was a lot going on much earlier. Here is a selection of what happened, details being obtained from the Traffic Circulars of the time. Some items may not be directly relevant but nevertheless are included for interest, if only that London Transport were bringing the Metropolitan Line up to date and ‘in line’ with the rest of the network. Date Brief details 02.01.50 “Stop-and-Proceed” abolished north of Harrow-on-the-Hill and all signals, semi- automatic and automatic, provided with signal post telephones. All trains to receive authority from relevant signalman before passing any signal at danger. Signal boxes affected were Watford Station (JL), Croxley (B), Watford Junction (C), Northwood (E), Pinner (G) and Harrow Station (JB). 01.50 Telephones provided on Chesham line (to signalmen at Chalfont & Latimer and Chesham) at One Mile Post, Two Mile Post and Three Mile Post. 04.06.50 Track slewed on a new alignment 30ft west of present from 1,000ft north of Watford South Junction to 1,500ft south of Watford South Junction, to allow bridges MR78, MR80 and MR81 to be taken out of use. 17.06.50 From midnight, maintenance responsibility for track, works & buildings and signalling between 28½ mile post (Mantles Wood) and 37 miles 195 yards, about ¾ mile south of Aylesbury South Junction, will be transferred from Railway Executive to London Transport. 25.06.50 London Transport to take over responsibility for management of ex-Joint Line from Harrow to Aylesbury South Junction including Watford and Chesham branches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Train Services on the Met and Gc Line
    THE EVOLUTION OF TRAIN SERVICES ON THE MET AND GC LINE by Eric Stuart (Readers may find reference to the Four-Tracking article in the July 2018 issue of Underground News helpful) After the Great Central (GC) arrived at Quainton Road and the service south thereof became established, both the GC and the Metropolitan Railway (Met.) provided services. However, the personalities at the heads of the two companies did not enjoy the best of relationships. Matters came to a head when a GC train crashed when failing to reduce speed over the (then) reverse curve into Aylesbury station in 1904. About that time, both the leaders retired and a period of better relations between the companies began. On 2 April 1906, the Metropolitan & Great Central Joint Railway (MGCJR) was created. This latter took over the lines of the Metropolitan Railway north and west of Harrow South Junction, with the exception of the branch to Uxbridge. These included the main line between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Verney Junction and the branch from Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham. The MGCJR was created under the terms of the Metropolitan & Great Central Railway Act, which received Royal Assent on 4 August 1905. At the same time, the Great Central and Great Western Joint Railway was formed, covering the lines south of Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to Northolt Junction. This was the result of a new line that aided the GC by partly avoiding congestion on the Met. and also giving the Great Western a shorter route to Birmingham1. One curiosity was that a Joint Committee was set up to manage a new Aylesbury station, jointly owned by two joint railways! Some points on terminology: The new line was commonly called just ‘The Joint Line’ and, even in later LT days, some staff still belonged to a particular class that made them feel superior to others2.
    [Show full text]
  • Retro Underground: the Seventies to the Noughties – 3
    RETRO UNDERGROUND: THE SEVENTIES TO THE NOUGHTIES – 3. OTHER EVENTS by Tony Morgan My earliest memories of the Underground are during the Second World War travelling from Kingsbury on the Bakerloo Line into London and sometimes on to Kent on the Southern Railway to visit relations. In 1968, after ten years of driving to North Acton, I started commuting in to Great Portland Street. While I was there the second section of the Victoria Line opened as far as Warren Street. One lunchtime I decided to have a quick trip on it. The 1967 Stock train came in to reverse back. The Train Operator was standing in the cab with his back to the direction of travel as the ATO stopped the train. Maybe this was being done to build confidence in the new control system. Travelling home one day from Great Portland Street I saw the latest LT Magazine on display in the ticket office. I then started buying it on a regular basis. The front cover of that first edition had a photograph of the C69 Stock about to be introduced on the Circle Line on it. From that magazine I found out about ‘The Last Drop’ event at Neasden Depot, on Sunday 6 June 1971 advertised, which celebrated the end of use of steam locomotives for engineers’ operations. There I joined the Society because of their Sales Stand. This was my first organised event. At this event all three remaining locomotives were in steam. L94 hauled a rake of engineers’ vehicles from the City and pulled into one of two Klondyke Sidings in Neasden depot.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Lines Ref No
    Joint Lines Ref No. F Item Description and Source Notes F1 Documents re closure of Manchester Central F2 The Cheshire Lines Railway - HMRS Jnl, 1967, article F3 Accident at New Mills, report - HMSO, 1961 F4 Index to articles re CLC in RM F5 The Swinton & Knottingley Railway -Ms, D.L. Franks F6 Met. & L.T Lines - Notes F7 Met. Line electrification - Amersham station - MT, 4/59, article F8 The Chesham Branch - RM, n.d., article F9 Quainton Rd.-verney junction - Notes F10 Marple Rail Trails - W.R Burton F11 Manchester Central aerial view - A3 laser copy Donated by Robert Emblin. F12 Manchester Central & Piccadilly - Photographs Donated by Robert Emblin. F13 From Train Shed to Exhibition Centre - The Story of the Manchester Central Station - Original Ms copy Donated by Robert Emblin. F14 The Development of the Central Station site into the G-Mex Centre - N. Spooner, 1/1987 F15 Manchester Central Station - The Engineer, 13/2/80, 27/2/80, 5/3/80, copies F16 Recalling the CLC - P. Hay - Steam World 8/92 F17 Manchester Central Revisited - RW, 5/1983, R.E Rose, copy F18 Manchester Central Remembered - R.E Rose F19 The Rise & Fall of Manchester Central - K. Groundwater, RW, June 1969 F20 Marple - A one time traffic centre of the Midland Railway - BRJ 1994 - W.R. Burton F21 Manchester Central - GN Warehouse - Manchester Evening News, 17/10/95 (article & photo) F22 GCR's Joint Lines - The Rewards of a railway flirt - R. Emblin, B. Longbone F23 GCR joint lines - Data appendix - R. Emblin 2/1994 F24 Gw-GC Joint Line Opening April 1906 copy F25 Inspection of new works Neasden to Prices Risborough July 1904 copy F26 Inspection of new works Northolt to High Wycombe April 1905 F27 book: 'The Metropolitan Railway' by C.Baker.
    [Show full text]
  • IL Combo Ndx V2
    file IL COMBO v2 for PDF.doc updated 13-12-2006 THE INDUSTRIAL LOCOMOTIVE The Quarterly Journal of THE INDUSTRIAL LOCOMOTIVE SOCIETY COMBINED INDEX of Volumes 1 to 7 1976 – 1996 IL No.1 to No.79 PROVISIONAL EDITION www.industrial-loco.org.uk IL COMBO v2 for PDF.doc updated 13-12-2006 INTRODUCTION and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This “Combo Index” has been assembled by combining the contents of the separate indexes originally created, for each individual volume, over a period of almost 30 years by a number of different people each using different approaches and methods. The first three volume indexes were produced on typewriters, though subsequent issues were produced by computers, and happily digital files had been preserved for these apart from one section of one index. It has therefore been necessary to create digital versions of 3 original indexes using “Optical Character Recognition” (OCR), which has not proved easy due to the relatively poor print, and extremely small text (font) size, of some of the indexes in particular. Thus the OCR results have required extensive proof-reading. Very fortunately, a team of volunteers to assist in the project was recruited from the membership of the Society, and grateful thanks are undoubtedly due to the major players in this exercise – Paul Burkhalter, John Hill, John Hutchings, Frank Jux, John Maddox and Robin Simmonds – with a special thankyou to Russell Wear, current Editor of "IL" and Chairman of the Society, who has both helped and given encouragement to the project in a myraid of different ways. None of this would have been possible but for the efforts of those who compiled the original individual indexes – Frank Jux, Ian Lloyd, (the late) James Lowe, John Scotford, and John Wood – and to the volume index print preparers such as Roger Hateley, who set a new level of presentation which is standing the test of time.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a Report by Sawtag Opposing
    A REPORT BY SAWTAG OPPOSING THE CLOSURE OF WATFORD METROPOLITAN STATION AND ITS ASSOCIATED ROUTE. ALL OF THESE ARE TO BE SAFEGUARDED UNDER EXTRACTED GOVERNMENT POLICY. This report opposes the closure of Watford (Metropolitan Line) Station on three major grounds. 1 Retaining peak, football and special traffic, and positively building up traffic. Both the Metropolitan Line and WCML/Watford Suburban Lines serve nearby Wembley Stadium extremely well already. Also, train portion working must be advanced to best practice elsewhere. 2 Facilitating the forming of an extended London Overground network, through the extracted Government Policy of better protection, critical in developing rail infrastructure and interchange. 3 Essential safeguards are to be put in place to protect the truncated alignment through Watford (Metropolitan Line) Station. Firstly , it is essential the latter station is retained at least for continued peak hours services, in view of the steadily increasing peak and general use of both the London Metropolitan Underground and Network Rail West Coast Main Line centered system. Safeguarding is also essential in order to serve during the interim for Watford Football Club traffic attending the Vicarage Road Stadium. Pending the establishment of a new station; immediately South of the Stadium on the new Croxley Link Line; Watford (Met) Station is to be kept open for both peak and Football traffic with requisite direct connecting buses. These connecting buses will run from a retained Watford Metropolitan Station direct to the Stadium. There was a railway triangle immediately South of the Stadium, and Croxley Moor alternatives (reference no. 8) to the Croxley Link Project; investigated both linking the Rickmansworth LNWR branch corridor west to the Rickmansworth (Met) Main Line towards Aylesbury, and generally reinstating the pre-Beeching railway triangle inter alia.
    [Show full text]
  • Signal Box Register Series
    Signal Box Registers Publication schedule and current state of play as at 10th July 2019 Item Publication dateStatus 1. Great Western PB: 22 December 2007 Out of Print HB: 28 December 2007 Out of Print 1. Great Western PB: 10 May 2011 Published (Revised Edition) HB: 24 May 2011 Published 2. Midland Railway latest draft is version E22 dated Substantially complete. 18th September 2017 Publication expected 2020-2021 3. LNER (Southern Area) PB: 29 May 2012 Published. HB: 6 Nov 2012 Published. 4. Southern Railway PB & HB: 23 April 2009 Published 5. LNWR (includes NSR, Sources include NSR (1998), No work started yet. MCR, FR and L&Y) LNWR (240-599), L&Y (1999). 6. Scotland PB: 31 Oct 2012 Published. HB: 7 Nov 2012 Published. 7. North Eastern Region Work in hand (includes H&B) 8. London Transport PB: 12 Jul 2019 Published. HB: 26 Jul 2019 Published. 9. Ireland PB & HB: 3 August 2015 Published CD-ROM CD: 1 January 2008 Includes Volume 1 CDROM updates #1: 2 February 2008 Corr. Sht 1 & updated vol. 1 GW. #2: 16 September 2008 Corr. Sht 2 & updated vol. 1 GW. #3: 23 April 2009 Plus Volume 4 Southern Railway #4: 24 May 2011 Plus corr. sheet 3 & the GW register (revised edition) #5: 21 June 2012 As above plus correction sheet 4 and volume 3 LNER (Southern) #6: 15 Nov 2012 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 5 and volume 6 Scotland #7: 25 Jul 2013 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 6 #8: 31 May 2014 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 7 #9: 3 Aug 2015 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 8 #9: 3 Aug 2015 (CD-ROM) Volume 9 Ireland & Isle of Man #10: 21 Nov 2015 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 9 #11: 10 Jul 2019 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 10 Volume 8 London Transport Correction sheets 1: 16 January 2008 Amended vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Financial Impact of the Great Central Railway's London Extension
    The financial impact of the Great Central Railway’s London extension By Tony Sheward © Tony Sheward 2020 1 THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY’S LONDON EXTENSION 1. Introduction The general opinion of authorities, who have written about the Great Central Railway’s (GCR) London Extension, seems to be that the project was not a financial success and acted as a drag on the company’s performance in the years following its opening. This article attempts to examine the financial results of the GCR in the years immediately leading up to the decision to commit to the project, the construction period, and operations from its opening up to 1913. It seeks to discover whether there were other factors, which influenced its financial performance either positively or negatively. For convenience, the title Great Central Railway is used throughout even though this name was not adopted by the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway until 1897. A glossary of the abbreviations for the various lines is included at the end. The detailed financial figures are presented in four time periods as follows: a. The Immediate Years Prior to Work on the London Extension 1887-93 b. Construction of the London Extension Phase I 1894-99 c. Construction of the London Extension Phase II 1900-06 d. The Years after Completion of the London Extension Work 1907-13 The article takes as its main source the annual reports of GCR1 and the Railway Returns2. The historical background for the article is mainly taken from published sources, in particular the three-part history of the GCR by George Dow3 and the short history of the GCR by Robert Hartley.4 Although up to 1912, the annual reports were prepared in two half yearly tranches, the information in this article is presented by calendar year for ease of understanding and comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • London Transport Records at the Public Record Office
    CONTENTS Introduction Page 4 Abbreviations used in this book Page 3 Accidents on the London Underground Page 4 Staff Records Pages 6-7 PART A - List of former ‘British Transport Historical Records’ related to London Transport, which have been transferred to the Greater London Record Office - continued from Part One (additional notes regarding this location) Page 8 PART C - List of former ‘British Transport Historical Records’ related to London Transport, which are still at the Public Record Office - continued from Part One Pages 9-12 PART D - Other records related to London Transport including Government Departments - continued from Part One Pages 13-66 PART E - List of former ‘Department of Education and Science’ records transferred from the PRO to the Victoria & Albert Museum Pages 67 APPENDIX 1 - PRO Class AN2 Pages to follow APPENDIX 2 - PRO Class MT29 Page 51- (on disc) APPENDIX 3 - Other places which have LT related records Pages 68-71 PRO document class headings: AH (Location of Offices Bureau) Page 13 AN (Railway Executive Committee/BTC/British Railways Board) - continued from Part One Pages 14-26 AN2 (Railway Executive Committee, War of 1939. Records cover period from 1939-1947) Pages to follow AT (Department of the Environment and Predecessors) Page 27 AVIA (Ministry of Aviation/Ministry of Aircraft Production) Page 27 AY (Records of various research institutes) Page 27 BL (Council on Tribunals) Page 27 BT (Board of Trade) - continued from Part One Page 28-34 CAB (Cabinet Papers) Page 35-36 CK (Commission for Racial Equality/Race
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Passenger Impact of Disruptions on Metro Lines
    Quantifying Passenger Impact of Disruptions on Metro Lines by Mark Perelmuter Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art (2018) Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Transportation at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2020 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. Author…………………………………………………………………………………………….... Department of Urban Studies and Planning May 20, 2020 Certified by……………………………………………………………………………………….... Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Supervisor Certified by……………………………………………………………………………………….... Haris N. Koutsopoulos Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University Thesis Supervisor Accepted by………………………………………………………………………………………... P. Christopher Zegras Professor Chair, Program Committee Quantifying Passenger Impact of Disruptions on Metro Lines by Mark Perelmuter Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 20, 2020 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Transportation Abstract Disruptions occur frequently in urban rail transit systems. Whether due to asset failure, passenger action, weather, or other causes, disruptions often force passengers to change their preferred route or mode, defer their travel to a later time, or avoid making the trip altogether. Researchers and transit network operators have
    [Show full text]