|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: craig.richmondcraig.richmond Date: Jul 20, 2008 12:32
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?
|
| |
|
| | 43 Comments |
|
|
Author: Frank IncenseFrank Incense Date: Jul 20, 2008 13:32
virgin.net> wrote in message
news:5pMgk.59899$GO7.20782@newsfe12.ams2...
> Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to having
> just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?
>
According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham trains
per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout the day
thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.
Its poor if you live at Amersham I guess, but during the day (when I have
used it) its hardly fight for a seat time ;)
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 20, 2008 13:37
"Frank Incense" nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
>> Just been reading on Wikipedia that Amersham might be going down to
>> having just two trains an hour? Is that not a really poor service?
> According to a leaflet its to do with possibly stopping 2 Amersham
> trains per hour to allow 2 trains to run to Chesham instead throughout
> the day thereby giving Chesham an "all day" service to central London.
Chesham already has an "all day" service to central London, although the
last leg of it is a shuttle from Chalfont & Latimer. Will they be running
a shuttle to Amersham instead?
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paul ScottPaul Scott Date: Jul 20, 2008 13:40
> virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:5pMgk.59899$GO7.20782@newsfe12.ams2...>> 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Jul 20, 2008 13:46
> 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/media/newscentre/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)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thagor2008thagor2008 Date: Jul 20, 2008 14:45
On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." blueukder.co.yon> 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
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Neil WilliamsNeil Williams Date: Jul 20, 2008 15:31
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:32:16 +0100, "Frank Incense"
nospam.com> 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.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Colin RosenstielColin Rosenstiel Date: Jul 20, 2008 15:36
> On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." blueukder.co.yon> 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John RowlandJohn Rowland Date: Jul 20, 2008 17:29
> On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." blueukder.co.yon> 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?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MIGMIG Date: Jul 21, 2008 00:40
On Jul 21, 1:29 am, "John Rowland"
journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:>> On 20 Jul, 21:46, "Richard J." blueukder.co.yon> 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. ...
|
| Show full article (1.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
