Commuters say new Chiltern line is 'misery'

[General Zod]

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/new...New_Chiltern_line_is__misery___say_commuters/

The Shire commuters pour much scorn on Adrian Shooter in the comments section !

TRAIN commuters have blasted Chiltern Railways after the introduction of its much-trumpeted new timetable was blighted by overcrowded carriages and signal failures.

Beaconsfield passengers, in particular, are demanding answers, saying they have been late for crucial meetings because their morning trains have been too full to board.

The rail firm has apologised, saying a lack of carriages and repeated signalling problems are to blame.

It said a survey has been carried out over the last week with a view to increasing the length of the busiest trains.

Commuters had been looking forward to a new timetable from September 4, after enduring 18 months of major disruption on the line. Chiltern Railways said the £250 million works would reduce journey times and improve the service.

But Andrew Pinto, 43, from Penn, said the service has got worse. He has missed crucial work meetings in the past fortnight after not being able to get on his morning train.

He added: “There are delays every day, huge problems with signal points failing every other day, insufficient trains...
“We have paid with huge engineering disruption, but have had no benefit....It is a real horror story and Chiltern are the new misery line.”

While the old timetable had four trains leaving Beaconsfield for Marylebone between 7am – 7.30am, the new schedule has just two. On paper, services between 7.30am – 8.05am have been improved.

In the evening, there used to be eight trains coming back to Beaconsfield between 5.30pm – 7pm. This has been cut to six on the new timetable, which has forced passengers to cram into overcrowded carriages.

This has been compounded by problems with new signals and points on the line, causing repeated delays.

A spokesman for Chiltern Railways told the Bucks Free Press: “We are currently looking at how we can add additional capacity to trains that are crowded. Counting all trains coming into London and out of London to see where we can move things about – but this is not a quick fix.
“In terms of signalling faults, we are working with our contractor and Network Rail to improve reliability of new infrastructure – basically at the moment it’s bedding in – we installed 68 signals and 38 sets of points over 55 miles of track.

“We know though that this is not good enough and we are doing what we can to ensure that our service gets back to what people expect of us.”
A petition has been launched and signed by about 80 passengers. The Bucks Free Press met several commuters at Beaconsfield this week, who had all experienced problems.

David Foster-Lyons, a strategy advisor, said: “It's been worse since they brought in the so-called improvements. They must have got rid of someone that understands punctuality.”

Matthew Alexander, a 35-year-old banker, said: “It's been a massive disaster. There's either not been enough carriages or they've not been on time.

"They seem to be two carriages short on the busiest trains. I've been late for a couple of meetings so I've started leaving earlier.”

Chris McCall, 42, a project manager, said: “In the morning you generally target a particular train, but if its late or over-crowded you're screwed. I've missed two crucial meetings and it just starts your day off on a stressful note.”

Janice Morley, who works for the Evening Standard, said: “I just feel it's a very expensive train line and they are getting it all their way...I never get a seat on the train. "There was a catastophic situation last week when the signals went down at Ruislip. You get home in a bad mood and the impact on people's lives is enormous.”

Ian Stuart, a management consultant, said: “It's a real shame that over the last few years Chiltern have gone from being one of the best services to being pretty poor.

"The reduction in capacity from Beaconsfield is making a key commuter route very painful to use. The latest cut has reduced capacity so much that people are now struggling to get on the busier trains....It's a real mess.”

Joanne Smalley, a media manager, said the reduction of trains to Beaconsfield during the evening peak was “simply not acceptable”.
She added: “Come January no doubt, we will be forced to pay more for a worse service - fewer trains with fewer seats and no speed improvements.”

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I Can't open this item, is the new service really that bad?, I was hoping to try it out prob going from Lon to Brum on a clubman train and return loco hauled which I think you can only do on weekdays, there is a loco hauled train around 1600 from Moor St I understand. I was hoping to get their GBP 1.00 or 5.00 fares if poss.

 

[Via Bank]

Major timetable change in "not perfect for first few months, some customers unhappy" shocker.

 

[DavidBusDriver]

Indeed was travelling back into London from Stratford-on-Avon on Sunday and had to bite my tongue when I heard a very melodramatic woman at High Wycombe saying she and her little darlings had been waiting for 4 hours for a train and then couldn't get a seat... very much doubt that she had been waiting that time! Was a rather busy train though I think something was happening at Wembley since it was calling there? Few Chelsea shirts on the train you can guess how much I follow football lol!

And yes if anyone asks, I did give my seat up for a paying passenger , been feeling rather chirpy and helpful the past few days

 

[20Man]

There have certainly been some problems. Chiltern themselves admitted things hadn't gone well. There have been problems with the new infrastructure, point and signal failures, but these seem to be getting sorted.

The main problems have been with overcrowding, not just peak times. They have been using 3 car 168's on some services that would be standing room even with a 4 car. I guess this is because of them going for the Birmingham market and attracting more passengers from that area. From what i've seen myself the trains do seem much more crowded.

I did one of the 67 hauled services last week from Marylebone to Banbury and that was a very pleasant journey, 13:37 from MYB so the business coach was free to use, the return was a 3 car 168 with people standing from Banbury to Marylebone. They have also had some trains cancelled which have been announced as being because they had not been fuelled.

Hopefully they will be able to sort things out as at the moment things have certainly gone downhill from what they were.

 

[Schnellzug]

Does anyone take local papers seriously ranting about Misery for Commuters? It's always Misery for Commuters in the world of the Local Press, we all know that.

 

[oversteer]

I've always managed to get a seat, so I'm not complaining !

 

[ushawk]

Ive been on a return to Birmingham using the new Chiltern - only problems were that both journeys were delayed (1st journey was because a late XC was pathed in front from Aynho Jct and the 2nd stopped 10 seconds after leaving Moor St, then carried on 5 mins later).

I managed to get a seat on both of them, although the return was a loco-hauled and all seats were taken - except in business class which was empty.

 

[cslusarc]

Does Chiltern opperate most service as single 2/3/4 car units or do they operate units in multiples more often?

The article mentioned above leads me to believe that Chiltern needs more rolling stock so that it can lengthen more peak and near-peak services. Would it be smart for Chiltern to receive all surplus Thames Turbos (British Rail Class 165/1) and Turbo Expresses (British Rail Class 166) after the Great Western mainline electrification is complete? If required, the 19 Clubman (British Rail Class 168) and 4 British Rail Class 172/1s could be cascaded to other operators because these Turbostars are likely line cleared for more lines in the country.

 

[anthony263]

Does Chiltern opperate most service as single 2/3/4 car units or do they operate units in multiples more often?

The article mentioned above leads me to believe that Chiltern needs more rolling stock so that it can lengthen more peak and near-peak services. Would it be smart for Chiltern to receive all surplus Thames Turbos (British Rail Class 165/1) and Turbo Expresses (British Rail Class 166) after the Great Western mainline electrification is complete? If required, the 4 British Rail Class 172/1s could be cascaded to another operator because these Turbostars are likely line cleared for more lines in the country.

I think FGW should be 1st in line for the displaced class 165/166's, no offence but places like Bristol need more rolling stock more urgently than the chiltern line.

I do admit perhaps chiltern should have ordered another few class 172's, but i hope more loco hauled sets will enter service once they have come back from refurbishment.

 

[Aictos]

To quote Windsor Davies from the It Ain't Half Hot Mum comedy, "Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind"

The line needed investment and got it, now they're complaining, :roll:

No pleasing some people!

 

[sprinterguy]

Does Chiltern opperate most service as single 2/3/4 car units or do they operate units in multiples more often?

The article mentioned above leads me to believe that Chiltern needs more rolling stock so that it can lengthen more peak and near-peak services. Would it be smart for Chiltern to receive all surplus Thames Turbos (British Rail Class 165/1) and Turbo Expresses (British Rail Class 166) after the Great Western mainline electrification is complete? If required, the 4 British Rail Class 172/1s could be cascaded to another operator because these Turbostars are likely line cleared for more lines in the country.

There will still be a few Network Turbos required on the GWML to work the branches that are not being electrified as part of the Oxford/Newbury electrification: It would be tidiest if the smaller fleet of 166s were retained for these diagrams, but I've seen it reported that certain platforms on some of the branches would need altering to allow operation of three car units.

I agree with anthony263 that the 165s freed up by electrification should be retained within the FGW franchise and shifted over to the Bristol and West Country area where additional capacity is desperately needed, and it would allow FGW to get rid of their eight 143 Pacers.

On the Birmingham runs, I personally have never seen 168s doubled up; they always seem to run as single three or four car units, though I have seen 168s strengthened with a 165 now and again.

From all the reports I have seen of overcrowding issues linked to the new Chiltern timetable, it seems that rostering suitable stock to the most appropriate duties is a problem. This surprises me, as the old arrangements before the new timetable was introduced seemed to work well, and I thought that the introduction of the loco hauled rakes would mean that there would be plenty of three and four car 168s to go around for the remaining services, coupled with the reduction in journey times along the length of the route.

IMO, all of the London - Birmingham services that are not worked by loco hauled rakes should consist of four car 168s, leaving the shorter three car 168s and the 165 fleet available for shorter suburban/medium distance journeys, but this doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. I'm certainly surprised to see that two car 165s are making regular apperances at the Birmingham end of the line, even on the reasonably short hop Leamington shuttles.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Most Birmingham - London services are made up of at least four cars, though it is still a difficult act to figure out what coaches are needed on which trains. Some of the suburban stuff gets incredibly busy, High Wycombe always sees plenty of people boarding, and there is a lot of traffic between London and Bicester North with people travelling to the Bicester Village retail outlet. It is sometimes incredibly difficult to predict which trains will be busy and which ones wont, especially in the off peak periods.

That said, the overcrowding has definitely been an issue since the timetable changed. It is too early to say for sure what the problem is because a lot of trains have been cancelled due to signalling problems and when that has happened there have been two trains worth of people trying to squeeze onto one train. There have been trains which were diagrammed to run in multiple which have been split to avoid a cancellation. The signalling problems were inevitable I guess, they always tend to happen after a major installation, but once they are brought under control (and they will be) then it will be a better time to judge on the success or failure of Evergreen 3. It hasnt been great so far, but it is definitely too early to state exactly why due to the number of teething troubles which will be eliminated as time passes by.

I do think the December timetable will see quite a bit of re jigging, and another loco hauled rake would certainly help free up coaches for other services. Having more depots sign 172s might be an idea too.

 

[Greenback]

There will be unhappy and dissatisfied passengers at every timetable change. The more radical the changes, the more people will not like it. Usually, though, they ar ein the minority, unless there has been a massive mess up!

The more changes there are to a timetable, the longe rit takes to bed in. Diagrams sometimes need to be tweaked as unforeseen problems can crop up, and loadings can be difficult to forecast.

Add in a local paper that may have become anti rail due to HS2, and you have all the ingredients for this kind of story!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

That is true too. I dont know how many people here use Facebook, but those who do will know just how insane the reaction to the changes they made to the layout last week were. You would think the world were about to end going from some reactions, and I guess there might be a similar thing going on here. Judging how much of it is genuine cause for concern and how much of it is just people hating something because it is new and unfamiliar is something I am glad I am not responsible for though!

 

[Greenback]

That is true too. I dont know how many people here use Facebook, but those who do will know just how insane the reaction to the changes they made to the layout last week were. You would think the world were about to end going from some reactions, and I guess there might be a similar thing going on here. Judging how much of it is genuine cause for concern and how much of it is just people hating something because it is new and unfamiliar is something I am glad I am not responsible for though!

Indeed. When services at Ferryside and Kidwelly were retimed earlier this year a couple of regulars were outraged that their service had changed from Swanse a had moved to 1735 from 1705.

However, after a couple of weeks they realised that the journey home was far more comfortable, they didn't have to rush out of work to get the earlier train and things were actually not so bad after all!

 

[Buttsy]

I agree with anthony263 that the 165s freed up by electrification should be retained within the FGW franchise and shifted over to the Bristol and West Country area where additional capacity is desperately needed, and it would allow FGW to get rid of their eight 143 Pacers.

The problem with 165s is that they were built to allow for the greater clearances available on the GWML and so are not actually cleared for many routes (including those in Cornwall). There was a link to what units were cleared where on here on another thread. I'll try to find it and post it.

If the 165s are OK over the Chiltern Mainline, then it would make sense to switch units to there, swapping with 172s to go to FGW to cover non-165 cleared lines.

Here's the link: http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf

 

[Mojo]

The overcrowding in the West of England isn't now half as bad now as it used to be (back in the original days after FGW's first timetable) as trains have been brought out of storage, timetable changes and now it's becoming easier as 150s come on stream from the West Midlands.

I'd say that a much more sensible place for the 165s after Great Western is on the Chiltern route.

 

[RPM]

The 90mph capability of the FGW 165s would certainly be useful on the Chitern Main Line, and maybe some 165/0s could go to FGW in exchange to work the branches.

 

[Buttsy]

Here's the link I was referring to: http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T787_appsB_G_final.pdf

 

[20Man]

I think one of the things that doesn't help is that Chiltern would often run a 165 + 168 on some services, which helped to boost capacity with a 3 car 168, but that isn't really viable with so much of the route cleared for 100 mph.

 

[RPM]

I think one of the things that doesn't help is that Chiltern would often run a 165 + 168 on some services, which helped to boost capacity with a 3 car 168, but that isn't really viable with so much of the route cleared for 100 mph.

That was often done on weekends, especially when the WCML was closed and it worked because most of the Birmingham services, though booked for 168s, were timed for 165s. Post-Evergreen 3 most Birmingham services are timed for 168s and so adding or substitiuting a 165 now means an automatic PPM failure.

 

[IanXC]

There will still be a few Network Turbos required on the GWML to work the branches that are not being electrified as part of the Oxford/Newbury electrification: It would be tidiest if the smaller fleet of 166s were retained for these diagrams, but I've seen it reported that certain platforms on some of the branches would need altering to allow operation of three car units.

Thats one outcome but I've also heard suggestions that potential bidders for the GW franchise could fund the wiring of these branches. I presume this would help the franchisee massively with operational flexibility.

 

[Emma_Gascoigne]

In the weeks since we launched our new timetable, we have been closely monitoring performance and listening carefully to feedback from passengers.

The 5 September timetable change was the biggest in a decade. We used all our professional expertise to try to get it right, but it is clear that there are a number of elements which have not worked in the way we had hoped, and unfortunately passengers from Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe have seen the biggest concentration of problems.

We will be making some changes, where we can by adding additional carriages, where possible. In addition, the passenger survey has been extremely valuable in helping us to identify the specific issues customers are facing. We are using this information to also identify other changes which we will be able to make in December to improve reliability and reduce crowding.

Emma Gascoigne
Chiltern Railways
[email protected]

 

[HSTEd]

Wait, that map seems to indicate that 150s could potentially be cleared for Gospel Oak to Barking but have not been.... I thought 150s had been on that line for years until they were just recently displaced?
Meh, thats rather off topic.

Its almost certainly all teething issues and people angry because something changed,

 

[Buttsy]

Wait, that map seems to indicate that 150s could potentially be cleared for Gospel Oak to Barking but have not been.... I thought 150s had been on that line for years until they were just recently displaced?

As a friend of mine who works for Network Rail said in regard to clearances of HSTs to Waterloo from Reading - 'We know it works because we've done it, but we can't prove it works on paper...'

It's probably down to the clearance being OK but not within tolerances eg. 5cm clearance as opposed to the required 10cm (figures plucked from the air to make the point, they are NOT the actual requirements as far as I'm aware).

 

[tbtc]

The main problems have been with overcrowding, not just peak times. They have been using 3 car 168's on some services that would be standing room even with a 4 car. I guess this is because of them going for the Birmingham market and attracting more passengers from that area

This is the problem.

TOCs like to focus on "additional" revenue streams, rather than the "core" (see also London Midland wanting to run London - Liverpool and Birmingham - Preston - both of which are Virgin services - whilst cutting half the Birmingham - Liverpool service - still 100% LM run, so they would still get all of that ORCATS money).

Chiltern have an eye on the Birmingham - London market (hence the faster trains, the "Business" service etc). All well and good, but it means your trains are running fast through places like Wycombe - the "core" market.

I guess the decision was taken that a bigger slice of the large Birmingham - London "cake" is worth more than growing the local market.

Incidentally, AIUI the 172s are pathed for superior acceleration - a 165 wouldn't be able to fit those paths because it couldn't accelerate as sharply (hence my reservations about giving FGW 165s to Chiltern)

 

[swt_passenger]

Incidentally, AIUI the 172s are pathed for superior acceleration - a 165 wouldn't be able to fit those paths because it couldn't accelerate as sharply (hence my reservations about giving FGW 165s to Chiltern)

The 172s are 100 mph units as well - they should be doing the same job as the 168s...

 

[tbtc]

The 172s are 100 mph units as well - they should be doing the same job as the 168s...

The story doing the rounds was that they were being introduced as 75mph due to acceleration being more important than top speed on the services they were restricted to.

I've since heard it is 100, but thought the acceleration point remained?

 

[swt_passenger]

The story doing the rounds was that they were being introduced as 75mph due to acceleration being more important than top speed on the services they were restricted to.

I've since heard it is 100, but thought the acceleration point remained?

Don't really know. Seemingly a Chiltern driver posting in wnxx confirmed they are definitely 100 mph units, and then (surprisingly) someone else added that the LO units are 100 mph too.

There seems to be confusion about this all round, I just noticed in Today's Railways UK current edition article on the LM rollout they mentioned that 100 mph is only applicable to LM units - so I guess (given the time of year) that might find its way into the 2012 Platform 5 guides...