Discussion:
Metropolitan line Watford
(too old to reply)
John Leach
2016-12-13 12:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A blog that I read (diamond geezer) had a posting today where tfl's business plan was published last week was mentioned.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20161215-item09-tfl-business-plan.pdf

It no longer contains the Metropolitan line extension to Watford Junction.
The only listed projects are the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham, the Northern line extension to Battersea and the London Overground extension to Barking Riverside.

Has the Metropolitan line project been quietly dropped?

John
Recliner
2016-12-13 13:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:44:27 -0800 (PST), John Leach
Post by John Leach
A blog that I read (diamond geezer) had a posting today where tfl's business plan was published last week was mentioned.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20161215-item09-tfl-business-plan.pdf
It no longer contains the Metropolitan line extension to Watford Junction.
The only listed projects are the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham, the Northern line extension to Battersea and the London Overground extension to Barking Riverside.
Has the Metropolitan line project been quietly dropped?
Yes, I saw Geezer's blog as well, but I think the project has gone too
far to be dropped. I think the mayor's document was talking about new
projects, not ones that date back a long way. Remember, this isn't
primarily a TfL project:

"The £284·4m cost includes a local contribution of £125·4m, £109·8m
from the Department for Transport and £49·2m from Transport for
London. The local funding includes £87·9m from the Hertfordshire Local
Enterprise Partnership, which represents 40% of its total Growth Deal
funding from the government "

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/metropolitan-line-extension-funding-agreed.html
Recliner
2016-12-16 16:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Leach
A blog that I read (diamond geezer) had a posting today where tfl's
business plan was published last week was mentioned.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20161215-item09-tfl-business-plan.pdf
It no longer contains the Metropolitan line extension to Watford Junction.
The only listed projects are the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham, the
Northern line extension to Battersea and the London Overground extension
to Barking Riverside.
Has the Metropolitan line project been quietly dropped?
Aha, the plot thickens:

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/one-extensions-missing-precarious-status-croxley-rail-link/

In summary, with work having barely started, there's yet another cost
over-run, which nobody is volunteering to fund. Taylor Woodrow has been
dropped as the main contractor, and no replacement has been appointed.

But the bigger question that always gets raised here, is how an earth such
a small, simple project can cost close to £300m.
s***@potato.field
2016-12-19 09:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/one-extensions-missing-precarious-statu
-croxley-rail-link/
In summary, with work having barely started, there's yet another cost
over-run, which nobody is volunteering to fund. Taylor Woodrow has been
dropped as the main contractor, and no replacement has been appointed.
But the bigger question that always gets raised here, is how an earth such
a small, simple project can cost close to £300m.
The whole point of the project eludes me frankly. It won't be used as a
route into central london - people will just get the quicker overground to
euston instead. There may be some demand for commuter traffic from watford to
various western points on the met but nowhere near enough to justify the cost.
If the point is simply to have a tube line at watford junction then surely
re-extending the bakerloo would be far quicker and cheaper.
--
Spud
Recliner
2016-12-19 09:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/one-extensions-missing-precarious-statu
-croxley-rail-link/
In summary, with work having barely started, there's yet another cost
over-run, which nobody is volunteering to fund. Taylor Woodrow has been
dropped as the main contractor, and no replacement has been appointed.
But the bigger question that always gets raised here, is how an earth such
a small, simple project can cost close to £300m.
The whole point of the project eludes me frankly. It won't be used as a
route into central london - people will just get the quicker overground to
euston instead. There may be some demand for commuter traffic from watford to
various western points on the met but nowhere near enough to justify the cost.
If the point is simply to have a tube line at watford junction then surely
re-extending the bakerloo would be far quicker and cheaper.
I think the local interest is more about serving the two new stations,
connecting them both to the Junction and LU. There will also be some
traffic from Met stations to the Junction. As for traffic from the Junction
to Euston, surely the much faster LM services are far more popular than the
slow, stopping LO?
s***@potato.field
2016-12-19 10:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:46:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
The whole point of the project eludes me frankly. It won't be used as a
route into central london - people will just get the quicker overground to
euston instead. There may be some demand for commuter traffic from watford
to
Post by s***@potato.field
various western points on the met but nowhere near enough to justify the
cost.
Post by s***@potato.field
If the point is simply to have a tube line at watford junction then surely
re-extending the bakerloo would be far quicker and cheaper.
I think the local interest is more about serving the two new stations,
connecting them both to the Junction and LU. There will also be some
traffic from Met stations to the Junction. As for traffic from the Junction
A lot of money just for that tbh.
Post by Recliner
to Euston, surely the much faster LM services are far more popular than the
slow, stopping LO?
Don't know. I guess it depends how frequent they are compared to the overground.
Also I'm sure a lot of people change onto the bakerloo instead of going all the
way to euston.

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't even the
longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it was going miles.
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-19 13:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley Green
Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
e27002 aurora
2016-12-23 09:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley Green
Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-23 17:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
e27002 aurora
2016-12-23 17:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Recliner
2016-12-23 20:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.
Martin Edwards
2016-12-24 13:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.
Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Charles Ellson
2016-12-25 01:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.
Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-25 09:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo
back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of
there when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it
wasn't even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not
as if it was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access
Croxley Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone
to Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to
central London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an
excruciatingly slow LU or LO train.
Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2016-12-25 12:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Charles Ellson
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-25 14:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Charles Ellson
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more recently
than that.
and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems
--
Roland Perry
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-25 20:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Charles Ellson
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.
and Epsom as well
Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as they
existed at the time the boundaries were defined.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Michael R N Dolbear
2016-12-25 22:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.
and Epsom as well
Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as they
existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting in
residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police. There was
no attempt to align boundaries until much later.
--
Mike D
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-26 00:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael R N Dolbear
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).
I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.
and Epsom as well
Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as
they existed at the time the boundaries were defined.
Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting
in residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police.
There was no attempt to align boundaries until much later.
It was only done when the Mayor was created as Police Commissar for London.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Martin Edwards
2016-12-26 07:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Recliner
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.
Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.
Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.
Thanks for the update.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Martin Edwards
2016-12-24 13:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
e27002 aurora
2016-12-28 09:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.
It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.
OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains. One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.
Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.
You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.
Charles Ellson
2016-12-28 21:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.
It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.
Why do you say that?
It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.
In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.
It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.
OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains.
That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.
Post by e27002 aurora
One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.
Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.
You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.
Martin Edwards
2016-12-29 07:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.
The suburban line from Euston went to Watford from its inception.
Nobody at the time could have thought of Watford as either in London or
a suburb, indeed we did not think it was at the time I left in 1970. It
just made sense from a transport point of view.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
michael adams
2016-12-28 21:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Recliner
2016-12-28 22:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
Basil Jet
2016-12-28 23:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.
Martin Edwards
2016-12-29 07:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.
My part of Northwest Birmingham was in Staffordshire, while most of what
became the enlarged Birmingham in 1911 was in Warwickshire.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Graeme Wall
2016-12-29 07:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Martin Edwards
2016-12-29 07:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
It took me till 1970.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Basil Jet
2016-12-29 08:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity.
That explains my complete lack of nostalgia.
e27002 aurora
2016-12-29 09:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)
That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.

With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-29 11:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which
individuals or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's
offices. And London mayors stay in the job much longer than any
transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial
county? Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some
arbitrary point in history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just
before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of
elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days",
which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had
no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my
day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear"
to mean expensive these days?)
That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very
powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting
for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.
Unfortunately, the general public doesn't do logic at all, refuses to
believe experts or be rational at all much of the time.
Post by e27002 aurora
Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.
Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.
However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".
That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.
Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.
The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.
Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.
With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.
These arguments were done to death in the Herbert report. After that, a ring
of authorities round London, including Epsom and Watford, fought
successfully to stay out of Greater London and the result was the London
Government Act 1963 with only minor adjustments to the boundary since.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
e27002 aurora
2016-12-30 08:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.
Unfortunately, the general public doesn't do logic at all, refuses to
believe experts or be rational at all much of the time.
Given Whitehall's track record, this is hardly surprising.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.
Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.
However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".
That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.
Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.
The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.
Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.
These arguments were done to death in the Herbert report. After that, a ring
of authorities round London, including Epsom and Watford, fought
successfully to stay out of Greater London and the result was the London
Government Act 1963 with only minor adjustments to the boundary since.
The Mandarins in Whitehall want a uniform county around each
metropolitan centre. In reality the world's most successful
conurbations have evolved contrary to that model.

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.
Basil Jet
2016-12-30 09:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.
Sorry for what?
e27002 aurora
2016-12-30 10:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.
Sorry for what?
Your words: "Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to
Warwickshire."

Would have happily obliged. But, there are posters, like yourself,
worthy of a reply.

Happy New Year.
Richard J.
2016-12-29 13:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)
That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.
Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.
I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Charles Ellson
2016-12-29 20:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:26 +0000, "Richard J."
Post by Richard J.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)
That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.
Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.
I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.
So a bit like US wannabes who've never set foot in the place ?
Richard J.
2016-12-29 23:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:26 +0000, "Richard J."
Post by Richard J.
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)
That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!
That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.
Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.
I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.
So a bit like US wannabes who've never set foot in the place ?
Not at all like that. You seem to be making an unwarranted assumption.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Martin Edwards
2016-12-29 07:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Charles Ellson
2016-12-29 20:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.
Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.
Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-29 22:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
Post by Martin Edwards
Post by Recliner
Post by michael adams
Post by e27002 aurora
TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.
With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.
Now what could possibly go wrong ?
Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which
individuals or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's
offices. And London mayors stay in the job much longer than any
transport secretary.
I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in history, presumably the day he was born.
Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.
Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.
No actually. Greater London was first /thought of/ before the Metropolitan
Board of Works was created in 1854. The idea of a more extensive area was
considered then but not adopted, apart from strange exceptions like the
Wimbledon & Putney Commons Conservators, a public body which, unusually,
straddled the London boundary.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Peter Beale
2017-01-09 13:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to harrow.
There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.
The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley Green
Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.
Oh to be back in 1954, when the off-peak service at all stations between
Watford Jct and Queens Park was 8 tph - 4 Bakerloo, 4 LM.

Peter Beale
Neil Williams
2017-01-09 14:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Beale
Oh to be back in 1954, when the off-peak service at all stations
between Watford Jct and Queens Park was 8 tph - 4 Bakerloo, 4 LM.
But the mainline local "LM" service was 2tph if that, so it would have
carried substantial numbers of passengers from Watford and Harrow that
it now doesn't. The current service is far better for the vast
majority of passengers.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Peter Beale
2017-01-10 11:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Peter Beale
Oh to be back in 1954, when the off-peak service at all stations
between Watford Jct and Queens Park was 8 tph - 4 Bakerloo, 4 LM.
But the mainline local "LM" service was 2tph if that, so it would have
carried substantial numbers of passengers from Watford and Harrow that
it now doesn't. The current service is far better for the vast majority
of passengers.
Neil
Much worse than that - Euston to Bletchley at 9.10, 10.50, 12.15, 1.40,
3.0, 4.15. Of these only the first and the last stopped at Harrow; 9.10,
12.15, 1.40 & 4.15 at Willesden Jct, the others non-stop to Watford.
Presumably not so many off-peak travellers from beyond Watford then.

Peter Beale
Neil Williams
2017-01-10 14:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Beale
Much worse than that - Euston to Bletchley at 9.10, 10.50, 12.15, 1.40,
3.0, 4.15. Of these only the first and the last stopped at Harrow;
9.10, 12.15, 1.40 & 4.15 at Willesden Jct, the others non-stop to
Watford. Presumably not so many off-peak travellers from beyond Watford
then.
No evening service? I found a 1910ish timetable online that did have one.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Peter Beale
2017-01-11 11:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Peter Beale
Much worse than that - Euston to Bletchley at 9.10, 10.50, 12.15,
1.40, 3.0, 4.15. Of these only the first and the last stopped at
Harrow; 9.10, 12.15, 1.40 & 4.15 at Willesden Jct, the others non-stop
to Watford. Presumably not so many off-peak travellers from beyond
Watford then.
No evening service? I found a 1910ish timetable online that did have one.
Neil
I was only referring to the day-time off-peak. In fact things get better
towards the end of the day. Later trains from Euston (all stopping at
Watford Jct) were:

4.56 (Tring); 5.06 (calling also Bushey); 5.20 (non-stop
Watford-Leighton Buzzard); 5.25 (also Harrow); 5.22 (Broad St to Tring,
also Harrow & Bushey); 5.43; 6.7 (Broad St to Tring, also Harrow &
Bushey); 6.12 (also Bushey); 7.12; 8.12 (Tring); 9.0; 9.55; 11.10 (also
Bushey); 11.56.

This is the 20th September 1954 until further notice BR(LM) timetable.
Time forbids my checking April 1910 and July 1922 Bradshaw facsimiles!

Peter Beale
Neil Williams
2017-01-11 12:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Beale
I was only referring to the day-time off-peak. In fact things get
better towards the end of the day. Later trains from Euston (all
4.56 (Tring); 5.06 (calling also Bushey); 5.20 (non-stop
Watford-Leighton Buzzard); 5.25 (also Harrow); 5.22 (Broad St to Tring,
also Harrow & Bushey); 5.43; 6.7 (Broad St to Tring, also Harrow &
Bushey); 6.12 (also Bushey); 7.12; 8.12 (Tring); 9.0; 9.55; 11.10 (also
Bushey); 11.56.
This is the 20th September 1954 until further notice BR(LM) timetable.
Time forbids my checking April 1910 and July 1922 Bradshaw facsimiles!
Cheers :)

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Neil Williams
2016-12-19 11:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
I think the local interest is more about serving the two new stations,
connecting them both to the Junction and LU. There will also be some
traffic from Met stations to the Junction. As for traffic from the Junction
to Euston, surely the much faster LM services are far more popular than the
slow, stopping LO?
Near nobody uses LO into London from WFJ, it takes ages. Anyone who
wants the Bakerloo changes at HRW.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
e27002 aurora
2016-12-23 09:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:57:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/one-extensions-missing-precarious-statu
-croxley-rail-link/
In summary, with work having barely started, there's yet another cost
over-run, which nobody is volunteering to fund. Taylor Woodrow has been
dropped as the main contractor, and no replacement has been appointed.
But the bigger question that always gets raised here, is how an earth such
a small, simple project can cost close to £300m.
The whole point of the project eludes me frankly. It won't be used as a
route into central london - people will just get the quicker overground to
euston instead. There may be some demand for commuter traffic from watford to
various western points on the met but nowhere near enough to justify the cost.
If the point is simply to have a tube line at watford junction then surely
re-extending the bakerloo would be far quicker and cheaper.
IMHO it is not right to terminate a line well short of a major
interchange. From Watford Junction Metro-land residents can reach
Stations to St Albans, and stations to Tring and Milton Keynes.

The pickle this minor project has gotten into is sad.
Loading...