'New Works' - why the choice?

[Phil]

One for our historians to answer my curiosity.

What was the rationale for which lines were transferred to LT in the 1935 New works order?

I understand the logic of High Barnet, but why was the Epping branch singled out to be transferred to the Central? Why wasn't it the Enfield Town branch or the Chingford branch (or both...)? Both the above are also true branches (even if long ones) and I cannot work out why the Epping branch got the special treatment (good or bad, that's up to you to decide......).

[Oracle]

And why out to Denham? There was surely never any serious thought that housing would be built out there? With the outbreak of war and reality creeping in, it is I suppose down purely to the nearby War Department Depot that Mill Hill East was actually served in the end?

[amershamsi]

why epping, and not shenfield is another question, can still serve part of the fairlop loop (say Ilford-Woodford). That would have also had the bonus of fast trains from the more major stations, avoiding the problem of Epping trains being so far out.

I'm guessing that the Epping line wasn't electrified, whereas the others (eg Chingford) were.

You would have also thought that some take overs south of the river would have been asked for, but I guess the Southern Region weren't going to give up anything.

I'm fairly suprised that a second route to Uxbridge (other than via the Uxbridge road tube) wasn't planned, either from West Ruislip/Denham area, or from the GWML - it's odd that they didn't extend the SSLs (and in fact, cut back the Met line to Aylesbury) in the 30s - they would have been the trains to take to the outer regions.

Another query from around that time - why does the district take the slow lines? surely the bigger trains would be better for longer distances (I know they joint ran when the Picc was extended) so why did the Piccadilly steal the fast lines and the longer branches? Surely Richmond, Northfields and Ealing Broadway with the District serving Hounslow and Harrow would have made more sense, or is this Richmond District users being a powerful lobby back then as well as now (stopping crossrail going there).

As for Denham, there would have been a lot of housing there if the central went there - seriously - look at how much post-30s (and 30s themselves) houses there are in Amersham, Chesham, Epping and so on (partly as the green belt was designed to allow growth there). In fact, even if there hadn't been the central line, it would be a fair size - it's only not as there's the green belt hemming it in.

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

I'm fairly suprised that a second route to Uxbridge (other than via the Uxbridge road tube) wasn't planned, either from West Ruislip/Denham area, or from the GWML - it's odd that they didn't extend the SSLs (and in fact, cut back the Met line to Aylesbury) in the 30s - they would have been the trains to take to the outer regions.

The Met was cut back to Aylesbury in 1936:

underground-history.co.uk/amersham.php

[mrjrt]

amershamsi said:

I'm fairly suprised that a second route to Uxbridge (other than via the Uxbridge road tube) wasn't planned, either from West Ruislip/Denham area, or from the GWML - it's odd that they didn't extend the SSLs (and in fact, cut back the Met line to Aylesbury) in the 30s - they would have been the trains to take to the outer regions.

Agreed. A loop from the GWML passing through Uxbridge (completing their intended connection to their other branch from the joint GWR/GCR line) could have been quite good, giving the central another loop at the western end (Ealing Broadway to W.Ruislip via Uxbridge) to complement the one at the eastern end. Alternatively, looking at a map, a connection between Heathrow and Feltham could let district services run in a loop from Richmond to Ealing Broadway, eliminating the need for a special Heathrow connect service.

amershamsi said:

Another query from around that time - why does the district take the slow lines? surely the bigger trains would be better for longer distances (I know they joint ran when the Picc was extended) so why did the Piccadilly steal the fast lines and the longer branches? Surely Richmond, Northfields and Ealing Broadway with the District serving Hounslow and Harrow would have made more sense, or is this Richmond District users being a powerful lobby back then as well as now (stopping crossrail going there).

Again, agreed. Having the larger trains stop all stations seems to make sense (larger capacity), but the comfort of the extra space is better used on passengers travelling for longer on express services surely?

amershamsi said:

As for Denham, there would have been a lot of housing there if the central went there - seriously - look at how much post-30s (and 30s themselves) houses there are in Amersham, Chesham, Epping and so on (partly as the green belt was designed to allow growth there). In fact, even if there hadn't been the central line, it would be a fair size - it's only not as there's the green belt hemming it in.

If you want to see what effect the tube and the tube alone can have on virgin farmland, look no further than Golder's green to Edgware - prime farmland until on a few years after the arrival of the tube. Denham would have had even more pressure had the connection in Uxbridge come to pass as it would have much more local traffic passing through it.

I'm a big advocate of radial routes, and western greater London was one of the few places where they actually managed to get partially built...only to be squandered in 20th century cutbacks.

[Oracle]

In the late Seventies the then SR was proposed to be extended from Feltham to Heathrow, and even a monorail was discussed, connecting Heathrow with Feltham! I am not certain that there is even a dedicated shuttle RAILAIR bus anymore!

[towerman]

Actually Chingford & Enfield Town services weren't electrified until 1960.

[Deleted]

I suspect the reason why the Epping and Fairlop lines were chosen is because they were self-contained and did not connect to any other lines. Likewise, the High Barnet, Edgware and Alexandra Palace lines were also chosen because they didn't reconnect to the network.

[Phil]

theonekea said:

I suspect the reason why the Epping and Fairlop lines were chosen is because they were self-contained and did not connect to any other lines.

(back on topic) My point exactly. Epping, Enfield Town and Chingford were all self-contained branches of the GER. So why just the one?? Epping seems the least logical of the three.

[Deleted]

Probably because the Enfield Town and Chingford branches had more residental development and thus a greater ridership, prejudicing the LNER against handing over all of the lucrative season ticket traffic to the LPTB. The Epping and Fairlop branches, though, were probably much less developed, especially around Fairlop, so there was an opportunity for the LNER to lose a low-frequency branch line and the LPTB to gain new expansion opportunities.

[Deleted]

The Edgware/Barnet/Alex Palace line was an obvious one: it was difficult to work with steam because of the gradients, and LT had lines reasonably close at Highgate (Archway) and Finsbury Park (GNCR). I suspect that the choice of the Epping line came about in some horse-trading between LNER and LPTB.

LT might have been less keen to take the Epping line if it had known that a Green Belt would be declared around London in the late 1940s. It was this that killed the Central beyond W Ruislip and the Northern beyond Edgware.

The FinCen-MHE section was electrified in 1941 mainly because of pressure on LT to serve the barracks at MHE. Without this, it is probable that the whole of the FinCen-Edgware line would have been abandoned.

[Phil]

theonekea said:

Probably because the Enfield Town and Chingford branches had more residental development and thus a greater ridership

Very good point - you're probably right (unless someone lays their hands on the discussion document).

[mandgc]

In my opinion the "New Works Programme" was the best that could be planned at the time.It is unfortunate that the whole programme was not completed due to the war, the Green Belt and the post-war economic situation.
The Minister of Transport 'requested' the planners to pay particular attention to N and NE London. North Ilford passengers had been agitating for a line along Eastern Av. for some time and there was pressure for the Archway Line to be extended to Highgate.
Diverting the Barnet Line traffic to Archway and Alexandra Palace branch traffic to join the Northern City Line at Drayton Park would ease congestion between Finsbury Park and Kings X.
Diverting the Ongar and Hainault lines traffic to the Central at Leyton freed the lines from Ilford and Stratford into Liverpool St including the crossing of the Main lines by Ongar trains to Fenchurch St. and the East side of Liverpol St. Interchange at Stratford with the Shenfield Electrics and at Mile End gave additional routes to GE passengers.
The LPTB may have found itself 'saddled' with Workmans and Rush hour traffic from Leyton,etc. but probably made up for it by the Pooling of Receipts, the conversion to Trolleybuses and the rebuilding of other stations.
The LNER had more paths for its more lucrative outer suburban trains

[tubeprune]

There were a whole range of issues regarding the NE London area in the late 20s and early 1930s. The LNER put up a proposal for tube line from Liverpool St to Ilford to relieve overcrowding. The Ilford & District users wanted a tube line along Eastern Avenue. Leyton users were also dissatisfied with the LNER service. The LNER tube was rejected on the grounds of cost and a scheme then appeared to electrify the Fairlop loop and to Ongar and Shenfield. It was too expensive and the Fairlop and Ongar routes were suggested as suitable for adoption by the Central Line if government support was available. It was and the government offered a guarantee for a finance company to raise money. All this is in "Rails Through the Clay" by Jackson & Croome. Anyone interested in Underground history should have this book.