|
IndustryInsider
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: September 23, 2011, 10:22:38 » |
|
PPM‡ for Period 6 is the worst that Chiltern has ever had! 83.7% punctuality & even just 87% Reliability - which is nothing to do with the TT but a reflection on their maintenance....
Year on year, they're BOTH just 0.1% above annual targets for those markers - which sort of smacks of massaging the figures to keep them above target....another 0.2% drop in the next period & commuters will start to get a 10% discount....& not before time either. Chiltern appear not to want to compensate their regulars for the two weeks without & another two weeks pretty much without a decent trip.....
Yes, I saw the poster at Banbury the other day with the latest figures - though they've yet to put them on the website! I think it's safe to say both will drop below the targets from next month - even with the much better figures the last few days. Interestingly the Moving Annual Average for punctuality had been slowing slipping over the last year or so, by about 3 percetage points, before the Mainline timetable was introduced. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #91 on: September 23, 2011, 13:19:50 » |
|
My calculations on services to/from Marylebone this morning (0-4 minutes late at destination - based on the public arrival times):
6am-12pm: 95% 7-10am: 94%
No cancellations. Longest delay 13 minutes (0626 AYS-MYB▸ ).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #92 on: September 23, 2011, 13:35:12 » |
|
Its looking as if Chiltern are just going to offer the odd longer train to the heartlands, starting in just over a week on 3 October. Then nothing more until the Dec11 TT. Seeming to want to face their customers down - I wonder whether they can organise themselves and start a serious protest?
Timings seem to work, overcrowding is still seious
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafford1
|
|
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2011, 19:30:22 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2011, 21:31:25 » |
|
Only 83 signatures though, somewhat surprising...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
XPT
|
|
« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2011, 23:09:21 » |
|
I plan to make a journey soon(possibly next week) to experience a journey on the new fast Chiltern mainline and also onboard a superb Class 67. The 1630 London Marylebone-Birmingham Snow Hill particularly realy interests me, as it is non-stop all the way to Warwick Parkway. A proper express service and loco hauled! But skimming through some of the comments in this thread it seems the normal Chiltern Railways passengers are not happy with this(along with other services) becauses it misses out some other stops. I may well have to hurry up and travel on this service before they ammend the timetable and add more stops in.
EDIT: Just realised the 1630 service isn't a Class 67. Ah what a shame. Nevertheless, London-Warwick nonstop onboard a Class 168 would still be interesting.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 23:28:48 by XPT »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #96 on: September 28, 2011, 09:55:55 » |
|
The 1650 is a 67 & coaches, I think
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #98 on: October 13, 2011, 22:51:43 » |
|
PPM‡ for Period 6 is the worst that Chiltern has ever had! 83.7% punctuality & even just 87% Reliability
Seriously...87% reliability for period 6? That's dire. Assuming I'm interpreting correctly, that means they've cancelled 13% of trains during the period, right?
98.57% 'Reliability' for the last period according to the figures now released on the Chiltern website. Where did you get the 87% figure from? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #99 on: October 14, 2011, 06:23:11 » |
|
4 week period, not the rollong annual....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #100 on: October 14, 2011, 11:20:58 » |
|
98.57% is the 4 week period.
The moving annual figure is showing as 99.14%.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #101 on: October 14, 2011, 13:11:51 » |
|
I think this post shows how easy it is for a TOC▸ with the best of intentions to make alterations to its timetable which then upset upset its existng customers.
This could be put down to on-rail competition Chiltern being anxious to grab some of the lucrative London Birmingham trade have put on fast trains to compete with Virgin out of Euston. In doing so they have managed to alienate their existing cliental south of Banbury.
It would be a bit like FGW▸ running most of its trains fast to Swindon, Westbury or Oxford. I can understand how high Wycombe and Beconsfield feel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #102 on: October 14, 2011, 13:57:59 » |
|
That's *exactly* the scenario..... 98.57% 'Reliability' for the last period according to the figures now released on the Chiltern website. Where did you get the 87% figure from? It's punctuality you need to look at. Reliability is purely a reflection of number of trains run against the TT |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #103 on: October 14, 2011, 14:24:27 » |
|
That's *exactly* the scenario..... 98.57% 'Reliability' for the last period according to the figures now released on the Chiltern website. Where did you get the 87% figure from? It's punctuality you need to look at. Reliability is purely a reflection of number of trains run against the TT That's right - but in your reply #87 you stated that reliability was only 87% - presumably that's a typo then - as it doesn't appear in the published figures? Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #104 on: October 14, 2011, 14:26:32 » |
|
Ok, I now see what you mean. I was taking figures from the poster at stations, not the website. I'll check tonight & reconfirm....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
