How bad is TfL Rail?

[Wolfie]

No-one is quite saying that; but they are broadly equivalent to the sub-surface 'S Stock' trains operated by London Underground; rightly or wrongly some people colloquially refer to the Met as a "tube" line (though that's more of a branding thing, as LU use the term "Tube" to refer to any LU service, and by extension in some contexts, to almost any service they operate; hence the "Tube map")

Also those mentioning Amersham to London are forgetting the fact that many Amersham to London commuters will in fact be taking Chiltern, which is a higher quality service than the Met.

I'd argue Crossrail is more like Thameslink than the Met (or, at least, should be!)

Re your last para, in an ideal world l'd agree. However, the London taxpayers (who l am one of) who are funding Crossrail in various ways are focused on services in and benefitting London, not the wider South East.

 

[BayPaul]

I'd argue Crossrail is more like Thameslink than the Met (or, at least, should be!)

I'd disagree - Both Crossrail and the Met continue just a couple of stations further outside London than they ideally would. Thameslink covers most (minor exaggeration) of the South East. Both Crossrail and the Met form the main stopping service at the outer ends of their branches, with a National Rail service providing faster services at half hour intervals from the last few stations to a London terminus that is less than perfectly situated. On Thameslink the fasts and semi-fasts are often split between the operators on each branch. Both Crossrail and the Met provide an intensive inner London service through zone 1 which is (or is expected to be) well used in its own right, is a key part of the line, and was the bit that was designed first, whilst Thameslink, partially through being left off the tube map, is (I think) not that heavily used for journeys entirely inside zone 1 (as opposed to providing connections into zone 1).
During the peak of the Thameslink timetable fiasco and before, the prevailing arguement on here was that it was a shame that Thameslink's concept wasn't more like Crossrail - remaining mainly inner suburban rather than having so many long tentacles!

 

[si404]

Nothing stopping them from introducing TfL only fares at tube rates

Define 'tube rates' when you can't put the stations (other than Iver and Langley) in numbered zones.

Should also note that fares on the ex-GA lines that TfL Rail/LO run are on a different fare scale (shared with GA) to the standard TfL fares.

There's also, from beyond-zone 6, residual London terminals fares to Paddington that are cheaper than Z1 fares - should they go because they aren't 'tube rates'?

Also those mentioning Amersham to London are forgetting the fact that many Amersham to London commuters will in fact be taking Chiltern

Or perhaps you are forgetting that, as someone 100s of miles away in Yorkshire, you are just guessing what Amersham is like.

And perhaps those mentioning Amersham (like me) are doing so because they are very familiar with it and not just because it's part of TfL's empire a similar distance from Central London as Maidenhead and so a very apt equivalent to discuss when talking about TfL serving Maidenhead.

Overall, at Amersham, the Met is slightly more popular: 2.10 million (2018 tube stats) vs 1.992 million (18-19 NR stats), and those NR figures include travel northwards as well. Off-peak, Chiltern is very much the more popular option (since December 2012, when Chiltern trains overtook all-stop Met trains near Harrow meaning that it was pointless taking the Met even to/from Harrow, though they fixed that, but people got in their habits). Peak time - ie, commuters - the Met is more popular.

OK, the 56 minutes Amersham-KXSP was off-peak (so not fast), but that was explicitly said. Of course, with fast trains, skipping those stops means it's 2 stops further at Barbican where you hit the 55 minute same journey time as Maidenhead-Canary Wharf.

which is a higher quality service than the Met.

No it's not! Certainly it is 5-10 minutes faster to Marylebone (39-44 minutes) than to Baker Street vs a stopping Met (49 minutes), but that's about it.

The equivalent on the Great Western would be Maidenhead's residual GWR service, if it was run by 165s still (and 2-car off-peak) vs through Elizabeth Line service.

 

[matt_world2004]

There are more GwR services from reading , Maidenhead ,Slough and twyford than there are Chiltern services from Amersham

 

[cactustwirly]

There are more GwR services from reading , Maidenhead ,Slough and twyford than there are Chiltern services from Amersham

Not off peak

 

[si404]

There are more GwR services from reading , Maidenhead ,Slough and twyford than there are Chiltern services from Amersham

Presumably we only care about London services and are ignoring the branches. Amersham sees 2tph off-peak Chiltern, and 4tph peak (and the same with the Met line).

Reading: Obviously there's more GWR services.

Twyford and Maidenhead: 2tph all day - so the same off-peak, and less at peak.

Slough: Off-peak, yes (4tph). Peak, no (2tph).

Not off peak

When matt's statement is true, it's off-peak (and only at Slough). It's peak times where Amersham has more non-TfL London services.

Of course, COVID timetables have been ignored here.

 

[matt_world2004]

Not off peak

Between 20:00-21:00 tonight Reading gets 6 GwR trains per hour to Paddington. Amersham gets 2 tph to Marylebone

 

[Non Multi]

My local is Taplow/Burnham. I treat it (GWML) like the Met now. Short journeys, many in 1 direction only, as the current fares policy is good for triangular journeys.

Whereas with GWR it was often a challenge to just buy a paper ticket (frozen TVMs!), the trains and timetables were more suited for longer journeys. So with TfL in charge I actually visit London less often than before.

MTR have a reputation for skipping stops on both branches when things turn bad. Quite amusing to see your train whizzing by on the down fast! Certainly not a policy that will get people out of their cars in the long term.

 

[cactustwirly]

Between 20:00-21:00 tonight Reading gets 6 GwR trains per hour to Paddington. Amersham gets 2 tph to Marylebone

Which is irrelevant when discussing the service on the relief lines

 

[matt_world2004]

Which is irrelevant when discussing the service on the relief lines

Why is it irrelevant. If you are at reading and going to Paddington you can get on any of those trains. The average passenger doesn't care what line it runs on

 

[cactustwirly]

Worth bearing in mind the daily cap for Zones 1-9 is £13.30 and £18.80 for off-peak and anytime.

A travelcard from Twyford is £36.10 and £21.70 for an anytime/off peak travelcard, so basically double the price.

Why is it irrelevant. If you are at reading and going to Paddington you can get on any of those trains. The average passenger doesn't care what line it runs on

You wouldn't get the relief line services as they are not advertised as going to Paddington at Reading.

 

[matt_world2004]

You wouldn't get the relief line services as they are not advertised as going to Paddington at Reading.

So you would get on the faster GwR services at reading exactly my point. With the toilets and comfy seating.

 

[cactustwirly]

So you would get on the faster GwR services at reading exactly my point.

We're talking about TfL Rail here, so GWR fast services are irrelevant.

 

[matt_world2004]

We're talking about TfL Rail here, so GWR fast services are irrelevant.

No they are not. If you are travelling from reading to Paddington. You are not going to get on an slow service. When the fast gwrs can get you there quicker. The services are designed to compliment each other. And unless you have a concession ticket that's only valid on the TfL rail. You are not going to sit on an near all stations service from reading to Paddington.

 

[cactustwirly]

No they are not. If you are travelling from reading to Paddington. You are not going to get on an slow service. When the fast gwrs can get you there quicker. The services are designed to compliment each other. And unless you have a concession ticket that's only valid on the TfL rail. You are not going to sit on an near all stations service from reading to Paddington.

That's my point, so why are we discussing fast GWR services from Reading when they have nothing to do with what's already been discussed?

 

[matt_world2004]

That's my point, so why are we discussing fast GWR services from Reading when they have nothing to do with what's already been discussed?

Because in comparison to the Chiltern services at Amersham there are more gwrs from reading. And for most of the day there are the same amount of gwrs at the twyford Maidenhead and Slough

 

[cactustwirly]

Because in comparison to the Chiltern services at Amersham there are more gwrs from reading. And for most of the day there are the same amount of gwrs at the twyford Maidenhead and Slough

But Maidenhead is a better comparison to Amersham.
Reading is more like Aylesbury in your example

 

[mmh]

No, it's a metro service where one branch happens to go to outer suburban locations (Maidenhead/Reading) for operation convenience.

Alternatively, if you're the outer suburban passenger, it's an outer suburban service which happens to go to metro locations for operation convenience.

 

[bramling]

And perhaps those mentioning Amersham (like me) are doing so because they are very familiar with it and not just because it's part of TfL's empire a similar distance from Central London as Maidenhead and so a very apt equivalent to discuss when talking about TfL serving Maidenhead.

Overall, at Amersham, the Met is slightly more popular: 2.10 million (2018 tube stats) vs 1.992 million (18-19 NR stats), and those NR figures include travel northwards as well. Off-peak, Chiltern is very much the more popular option (since December 2012, when Chiltern trains overtook all-stop Met trains near Harrow meaning that it was pointless taking the Met even to/from Harrow, though they fixed that, but people got in their habits). Peak time - ie, commuters - the Met is more popular.

Presumably Amersham's use is very much dictated by circumstance rather than preference?

I'd have thought commuters heading to the City would use a Met Line service on the basis that it offers a direct journey, with the added benefit of boarding an empty train at Amersham so being guaranteed a seat. At that time of day by contrast a Chiltern service would presumably turn up at Amersham with many, most or all seats already taken, so no one in their right mind is going to take that unless perhaps they happen to actually wish to travel to Marylebone - and even then the enticement of an empty Met Line train may still make travelling to Baker Street and walking a viable alternative option.

By contrast at off-peak times when crowding is less of an issue and the likelihood more people will be wishing to travel to the west end rather than the city, Chiltern would presumably be a much more popular choice, with easy access to somewhere like Oxford Circus simply via a change to the Bakerloo at Marylebone.

I think this unique set of circumstances makes it very hard to use Amersham as an indicator of what people prefer or don't prefer.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Presumably Amersham's use is very much dictated by circumstance rather than preference?

I'd have thought commuters heading to the City would use a Met Line service on the basis that it offers a direct journey, with the added benefit of boarding an empty train at Amersham so being guaranteed a seat. At that time of day by contrast a Chiltern service would presumably turn up at Amersham with many, most or all seats already taken, so no one in their right mind is going to take that unless perhaps they happen to actually wish to travel to Marylebone - and even then the enticement of an empty Met Line train may still make travelling to Baker Street and walking a viable alternative option.

By contrast at off-peak times when crowding is less of an issue and the likelihood more people will be wishing to travel to the west end rather than the city, Chiltern would presumably be a much more popular choice, with easy access to somewhere like Oxford Circus simply via a change to the Bakerloo at Marylebone.

I think this unique set of circumstances makes it very hard to use Amersham as an indicator of what people prefer or don't prefer.

Also in peak times doesn't TfL run express met trains from Amersham anyway meaning the journey time should theoretically be not much longer than Chiltern Railways to Baker Street and when taking into consideration getting from Maylerbone to where you are working it ends up being quicker to take the Metropolitan line.

Anway personally with the Maidenhead situation I feel it comes down to how much you value those extra 10-20 minutes and considering at peak times there are fast services from Maidenhead to Paddington I don't really think there is much of an issue.

 

[FGW_Lad]

It's not the Central line, people aren't traveling end to end, and it goes significantly further out of London.
TfL Rail fares are the same as Thameslink and SWR outer suburban services, but have none of the facilities.

The trains are quite bad, not all comfortable.

They are a darn sight more comfortable than the GWR 387s which are meant for longer journeys too. Before COVID, I would regularly use TFL between Paddington and Slough to avoid them!

 

[si404]

Presumably Amersham's use is very much dictated by circumstance rather than preference?
...
I think this unique set of circumstances makes it very hard to use Amersham as an indicator of what people prefer or don't prefer.

Yes. This. And your analysis is rather good as to what those circumstances are.

As a further point, I would suggest that the Mets would be more popular off-peak than they are (as they were the first year of stopping everywhere) if there wasn't the 4 years of them getting overtaken by the following Chiltern training people to ignore the Met off-peak.

And I'm trying to think the last time I've seen someone use a toilet on a Turbo when travelling Amersham-Marylebone - which was the initial reason for Amersham/Chesham being brought in to this discussion: that these longer journeys than those involving Maidenhead have loos at stations but not on trains and no one bats an eyelid.

Also in peak times doesn't TfL run express met trains from Amersham anyway meaning the journey time should theoretically be not much longer than Chiltern Railways to Baker Street and when taking into consideration getting from Maylerbone to where you are working it ends up being quicker to take the Metropolitan line.

Only 2tph (the other 2tph are semi-fast, ie they skip 2 stops rather than the 6 that the fast trains skip). But the Chilterns have 2tph normal (I think some skip Rickmansworth as they are too long), and 2tph non-stop - the latter meaning the time differential over the Met is about the same as off-peak.

I know someone who commutes on the Met semi-fast both ways, to get to the Baker Street/Marylebone area. He chooses the slowest train as he can always get a good seat due to people not wanting it that badly at Amersham, and it starting in the evening from Baker Street. He could take a Chiltern back, but there's more competition for seats and it really isn't that long.

 

[bramling]

Also in peak times doesn't TfL run express met trains from Amersham anyway meaning the journey time should theoretically be not much longer than Chiltern Railways to Baker Street and when taking into consideration getting from Maylerbone to where you are working it ends up being quicker to take the Metropolitan line.

Anway personally with the Maidenhead situation I feel it comes down to how much you value those extra 10-20 minutes and considering at peak times there are fast services from Maidenhead to Paddington I don't really think there is much of an issue.

In reality the Met fast trains don’t really make that much of a time saving. However, there will no doubt be a psychological impact from missing out stops, plus there’s the slight benefit of not having so many stops so less people getting on overall.

 

[Meerkat]

For me the worry about a lack of toilets is when the train (or whole service) sits down for ages - toilets on the station are no use to you then! Sure it’s unlikely to happen but it’s a low risk high embarrassment worry....
Someone said that no one would be doing Canary Wharf to Maidenhead as it was a side to side journey - isnt that one of the major aims of Crossrail?
Elizabeth Line is so clunky - I assume it’s already the Lizzie Line?

 

[cactustwirly]

They are a darn sight more comfortable than the GWR 387s which are meant for longer journeys too. Before COVID, I would regularly use TFL between Paddington and Slough to avoid them!

Are you some kind of troll or something?

 

[si404]

Someone said that no one would be doing Canary Wharf to Maidenhead as it was a side to side journey - isnt that one of the major aims of Crossrail?

No one said that. I said "this is for an 'out the other side' journey that few will make.", but that's not the same.

Through Central London journeys are not really a major aim - cross Central London journeys are. Hence the service pattern of Shenfield-Paddington and Reading/Heathrow-Abbey Wood. What's being built is extending the GW Reliefs to and through the West End to The City, and the GE Shenfield Metro through The City to the West End, with a branch to Docklands tacked on the original plan. Do it as one line and run overlapping services to give a good core frequency.

Heathrow - Canary Wharf service was a condition of funding (see also Manchester Airport having direct services to half the North even though very few people stay on through Central Manchester), but that's the only through Z1-journey that's on the to-do list. The others that will be possible are due to operational convenience rather than any meaningful demand.

 

[Meerkat]

No one said that. I said "this is for an 'out the other side' journey that few will make.", but that's not the same.

Through Central London journeys are not really a major aim - cross Central London journeys are. Hence the service pattern of Shenfield-Paddington and Reading/Heathrow-Abbey Wood. What's being built is extending the GW Reliefs to and through the West End to The City, and the GE Shenfield Metro through The City to the West End, with a branch to Docklands tacked on the original plan. Do it as one line and run overlapping services to give a good core frequency.

Heathrow - Canary Wharf service was a condition of funding (see also Manchester Airport having direct services to half the North even though very few people stay on through Central Manchester), but that's the only through Z1-journey that's on the to-do list. The others that will be possible are due to operational convenience rather than any meaningful demand.

But Canary Wharf is (was!) a huge employment centre - why wouldn’t large numbers be commuting from Maidenhead way, and why wouldn’t that increase as those working in London now see the Wharf as easier to get to and therefore add it to places they are willing to work?

 

[cactustwirly]

But Canary Wharf is (was!) a huge employment centre - why wouldn’t large numbers be commuting from Maidenhead way, and why wouldn’t that increase as those working in London now see the Wharf as easier to get to and therefore add it to places they are willing to work?

Yes I don't see how anyone could not think that?
I don't see many people using Crossrail from Maidenhead though, as it would be much faster to get GWR to Paddington and then change there.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes I don't see how anyone could not think that?
I don't see many people using Crossrail from Maidenhead though, as it would be much faster to get GWR to Paddington and then change there.

How much faster though? Would probably depend how much Crossrail empties out at Paddington, otherwise you might be better getting a seat at Maidenhead all the way through.

 

[BayPaul]

Yes I don't see how anyone could not think that?
I don't see many people using Crossrail from Maidenhead though, as it would be much faster to get GWR to Paddington and then change there.

This is why I don't get the complaints about the standard of trains on here. Everyone doing a longish journey will have a choice of doing part of the journey on a more comfortable train with toilets and the cross-london element by Crossrail or tube, or getting a direct train that isn't currently a possibility. Everyone wins!