Does the met make sense?

[Deleted]

The more I use the Met and the Chilterns line to Aylesbury, the less I understand why the Met continues beyond Baker St. (to East London) and why the service North of Baker Street is run as two separate railways.

Any comments?

[metman]

Which map are you looking at-a 1980s one?

The Met terminates in the City and at Baker Street. The Uxbridge serivce runs into the City to provide extra capacity to the Northern part of the Circle. The Amersham and Watford services terminate at Baker Street becuase there is not enough capacity for them to run to Aldgate. Previously all 3 destinations ran to Aldgate but in a mish mash of times which did nothing for reliability. The current off peak service pattern works very well.

In the peak period however things are different. Most Met main passengers travel through to the City/Kings Cross so many of the trains are projected to Aldgate. As many trains as possible are pumped into Aldgate in fact. I don't think Baker Street could cope if all Met trains terminated at Baker Street and I'm glad they don't!

The Chiltern line runs a very different service to the Met and uses a different terminus of course.

[Deleted]

My first post :-) When I first came to the Met, the off-peak timetable was perfect. The 20 minute intervals to Watford were just right, plenty of time to recover when late and no stick to stick running. Now empty trains run up to the last stablers and no time at Baker Street to go to the toilet. Too many trains run from 8pm onwards on both the Watford and Uxbridge roads.
To answer the question, yes, two separate timetables from Baker to the north, the reasons why explained by metman.

[DrOne]

I do love the Met I was on the Amersham 'express' the other day and was in awe of the lavish track layouts between Wembley Park and Harrow. It really is impressive in comparison to other railways in London.

Of course I do think Chiltern's Aylesbury service and the fast Amershams could be just as effectively done by one service. One big thing I'll never fully understand is WHY the Crossrail proposal was rejected. This would have provided a solid service for Aylesbury - Moor Park not just to the west end and the city but also to the Docklands. Isn't this is better than what is currently offered by both the Met and Chiltern?

This might then also have allowed improvements such as serving Uxbridge and Watford from Aldgate off-peak, giving everyone on the Met more destinations with one train.

[ruislip]

metman said:

The Met terminates in the City and at Baker Street. The Uxbridge serivce runs into the City to provide extra capacity to the Northern part of the Circle.

It also allows passengers to avoid any potential long walks at Baker St between the Met and Circle/H&C platforms, or the other way around for outbound travellers.

[Deleted]

tattrat said:

The more I use the Met and the Chilterns line to Aylesbury, the less I understand why the Met continues beyond Baker St. (to East London) and why the service North of Baker Street is run as two separate railways.

Any comments?

At the outer end, there are historical reasons.

From 1891, the Met ran steam trains from Baker Street as far as Verney Junction, some distance beyond Aylesbury. In 1906, the tracks from Harrow outwards were leased by the Met to a Met/Great Central Joint Committee, and the GC ran trains from Marylebone.

By 1930, the Met had extended electrification as far as Rickmansworth, where traction changed from Met electric locos to Met steam locos.

When LT was formed, it rapidly decided it did not want to serve distant parts of Bucks or to have steam engines (except for works trains). It sold the steam engines and contracted the LNER to provide engines between Rickmansworth and Aylesbury/Chesham. The LNER continued to run trains from Marylebone to Aylesbury and beyond.

When the electrification was extended to Chesham and Amersham in 1961, LT decided not to run trains beyond Amersham. Service beyond there was then provided entirely by BR from Marylebone.

[Deleted]

drit said:

I do love the Met I was on the Amersham 'express' the other day and was in awe of the lavish track layouts between Wembley Park and Harrow. It really is impressive in comparison to other railways in London.

Of course I do think Chiltern's Aylesbury service and the fast Amershams could be just as effectively done by one service. One big thing I'll never fully understand is WHY the Crossrail proposal was rejected. This would have provided a solid service for Aylesbury - Moor Park not just to the west end and the city but also to the Docklands. Isn't this is better than what is currently offered by both the Met and Chiltern?

This might then also have allowed improvements such as serving Uxbridge and Watford from Aldgate off-peak, giving everyone on the Met more destinations with one train.

Where else do you get 4 track in the countryside? :-)

If the Crossrail proposal was accepted would that of meant that the Met would of lost the main-line from harrow? If it did there would be a few Ricky drivers that would of had heart attacks. ;-)

Londoners have a wide variety of destinations already, from west to east, north to south all without changing trains. Only thing thats missing is an M25 of tube tine.

[ruislip]

sydneynick said:

tattrat said:

The more I use the Met and the Chilterns line to Aylesbury, the less I understand why the Met continues beyond Baker St. (to East London) and why the service North of Baker Street is run as two separate railways.

Any comments?

At the outer end, there are historical reasons.

From 1891, the Met ran steam trains from Baker Street as far as Verney Junction, some distance beyond Aylesbury. In 1906, the tracks from Harrow outwards were leased by the Met to a Met/Great Central Joint Committee, and the GC ran trains from Marylebone.

By 1930, the Met had extended electrification as far as Rickmansworth, where traction changed from Met electric locos to Met steam locos.

When LT was formed, it rapidly decided it did not want to serve distant parts of Bucks or to have steam engines (except for works trains). It sold the steam engines and contracted the LNER to provide engines between Rickmansworth and Aylesbury/Chesham. The LNER continued to run trains from Marylebone to Aylesbury and beyond.

When the electrification was extended to Chesham and Amersham in 1961, LT decided not to run trains beyond Amersham. Service beyond there was then provided entirely by BR from Marylebone.

I understand that in the "good ole days" of British Rail[ways], the Eastern Region controlled this line upon nationalisation in 1948. Then it was transferred to the London Midland Region in 1958. When was the date, if any, that the line passed to Western Region control. IIRC, the Marylebone line through Ruislip to High Wycombe and beyond was always in Western Region territory.

[amershamsi]

funk said:

If the Crossrail proposal was accepted would that of meant that the Met would of lost the main-line from harrow? If it did there would be a few Ricky drivers that would of had heart attacks.

not to mention the councils along the route who blocked it (and more recently the taxpayer, who wouldn't want to shell out about £4 or 5billion on a route that wasn't really wanted by the people along it).

[ruislip]

metman said:

Which map are you looking at-a 1980s one?

Previously all 3 destinations ran to Aldgate but in a mish mash of times which did nothing for reliability. The current off peak service pattern works very well.

Also recall that all-day running to Aldgate was introduced in 1990s(Uxbridge and Amersham services). I remember reading about the "mish mash". There were 4tph Uxbridge-Aldgate and 2tph Uxbridge-Baker St; all Uxbridge services were-and still are-slow. The Watford line had 2tph to Aldgate(semifast) and 2tph to Baker Street(slow). Amersham had 2tph to Aldgate (fast) and 2tph to Baker St(semi). I guess that if you isolated the 2 Uxbridge-Baker St and 2 Watford-Baker St trains, they ran at 15 min intervals. Another group that probably ran at 15 min intervals was the semis on Watford-Aldgate and Amersham-Baker St if you isolated those.

[metman]

Yes, it was a total nightmare!! Travelling from Northwood to Baker Street, if I recall the off peak times were 03sa 08s 18 33sa 38s 48 a-to Aldgate s-Semi-fast if you missed one train you could have to wait 15 mins for the next. Needless to say I aimed for the 03/33 trains!

I'm glad Xrail was rejected-it would have destroyed the Met. All the fast trains would have gone and it would have been a very boring line. It would also have ended up with tube stock style seating!

I feel the Chiltern and Met lines are very different although I see what people mean when they say the Amersham and Aylesbury services are similar. I think in time, Chiltern will call at less and less Met stations!

[Deleted]

Wishful thinking would be for the London Mayor to have the Chiltern contract in his sights. ;-)

[Ben]

In time its likely the mayor will control London Commuter services, to some extent at least. I do love the met, but if it lost Amersham and Chesham services it would loose its identity somewhat. But, surely, it would make more sense for all services through Chalfont to be Met (4rail to Aylesbury) or Chiltern.

Electro-diesel dual powered S stock?

[Deleted]

benedict said:

Electro-diesel dual powered S stock?

Now thats a thought,

[metman]

It was considered post-war with electro-diesel tenders pulling T stock!

[Deleted]

metman said:

It was considered post-war with electro-diesel tenders pulling T stock!

At the LT Museum open weekend the notice placed on No12: Sarah Siddons, told us not to ask if it was a diesel

Didn't LT also try an AEC railcar (almost like a Pacer ) on the Chesham branch? or was it Ongar.

[Ben]

Both I think Rob.

Metman, would these engines have been owned by LT or BR? What an interesting prosepct that would have been.

[metman]

I think LT.

Quick question, how an earth do you upload photos? I've got a couple to put up and can't!

[Deleted]

You'll need to use flickr or some other photo sharing site metman.

Or ask some kind other people on the forum


Since LPTB immediately offloaded the steam engines to be worked by the LNER in 1933 until 1961, it would be odd for LT to purchase more non-electric locomotives.

[metman]

I've got flickr thats the problem!!

Yeah, I think the tender idea was laughed off-along with buffet car!

The LNER didn't like the Met's steam locos! The G/H/K locos were shipped off to other parts of the LNER and all scrapped by 1948, leaving the Dreadnoughts to be pulled by a mixture of A5s, L1s and 2MTs-and the occasional E class!

[Oracle]

Didn't LT also try an AEC railcar (almost like a Pacer ) on the Chesham branch? or was it Ongar.

If you can search on this forum you will see the posted photo of three ACV (AC Vehicles as in Autocars, AC sports cars, AC invalid carriages, of Thames Ditton) railcars on the Ongar branch at Epping around 1951 though they were also tried out on the Chesham one. I posted the pic as a scan from UNDERGROUND..I chose the photo when I edited that issue.

[Deleted]

you're quite right Oracle, it was ACV:

[from the LTM]



Platform view of Epping Underground station, showing an ACV diesel railcar operating the shuttle service to Ongar. It was on loan from British Railways (Eastern Region) to LT.

[metman]

Gosh, I don't know what's worse-that or the pacer? Talk about pimp my train! This beast also ran on the Abbey Flier and the Belmont branch.

[Oracle]

I once drove (1977) a Wagonen und Maschinenbau or whatever it was called railcar on the North Norfolk Railway, and it was with the Wickham cars effectively one of those ACV cars with double-ends. Great fun!

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2008 1:47:40 GMT metman said:

I've got flickr thats the problem!!

Yeah, I think the tender idea was laughed off-along with buffet car!

The LNER didn't like the Met's steam locos! The G/H/K locos were shipped off to other parts of the LNER and all scrapped by 1948, leaving the Dreadnoughts to be pulled by a mixture of A5s, L1s and 2MTs-and the occasional E class!

Railways never like the non-standard kit they acquire.

[Phil]

Mar 29, 2008 1:41:55 GMT metman said:

I think LT.

Quick question, how an earth do you upload photos? I've got a couple to put up and can't!

If you've got flickr, the easiest way is to 'copy' the link (url) for the image then to 'paste' that url into your post. Should work. If not ask one of us.

[DrOne]

Mar 28, 2008 20:49:08 GMT metman said:

I'm glad Xrail was rejected-it would have destroyed the Met. All the fast trains would have gone and it would have been a very boring line.

I feel the Chiltern and Met lines are very different although I see what people mean when they say the Amersham and Aylesbury services are similar. I think in time, Chiltern will call at less and less Met stations!

"Destroyed" it eh? Powerful words Well it could just allow fast Uxbridge and Watford services to run using the spare capacity.

Main point was the benefits gained by combining Amershams & Aylesburys. Since rationing the Met is so emotive, how about Benedict's proposal of extending to Aylesbury?

Obviously electrification to Aylesbury (or further?) would be significant but in terms of capacity would it be out of the question to bring the Aylesbury services into Baker St? At least it would fit Ken's aim of influencing commuter services into London, and free up platforms at Marylebone.

[Considering they can't even get the Croxley link going I wouldn't hold my breath ]

[amershamsi]

Apr 15, 2008 9:48:28 GMT DrOne said:

"Destroyed" it eh? Powerful words Well it could just allow fast Uxbridge and Watford services to run using the spare capacity.

err, no - every Crossrail to Aylesbury/Amersham plan I've seen has Crossrail subsuming all the fast tracks. You'd be able to get Watford semi-fasts but that's it - maybe a few more trains due to released capacity between Wembley Park and Baker Street. It would have added journey time from the stations on it to the south of the West End, and probably Bond Street as well (though would have made it direct, rather than the nice easy change at Finchley Road). Journey Times to the City wouldn't be that reduced.

And given the £5 billion or so price tag it would have got, it would be extremely poor value for money.

The current situation is probably actually the best we'll get (other than the massively reduced peak service to Amersham - bring on an Amersham peak shuttle to Chalfont). It will get more difficult to extend the Met out to Aylesbury, as the line gets longer and longer (phase 1 is to a Parkway station to the North of Aylesbury, phase 2 would be to the Oxford-Bedford railway and then along that)

I guess you could make the Amersham/Chesham trains peak only, electrify into Marylebone and out to Aylesbury Parkway and then run 4tph Marylebone - Aylesbury Parkway all day (during peaks, 2tph would be fast from Great Missenden, so as not to flood the Chilterns with Met pax, as is the case now), while running peak trains from Amersham/Chesham (2tph each?, ie current service levels) to Aldgate or Barbican (use the old Thameslink tracks to create a 4 platform station, where trains could reverse without conflicting) in order to supplement the service. This, however, reduces the frequency off-peak (not really needed) for the 'met' stations. It does give increased frequency to those north of Amersham off peak.

[Ben]

But because there are two seperate routes into Aylesbury, and further up the formation another route to the former GC main line, it would be easier to seperate the met line to Aylesbury, and have it stop there. If 4 rail is out of the question, then OHLE (which the 1974 London Rail Study advocated), or (which would have the effect of integrating the SSR and NR commuter lines...) introduce a fleet of electro-diesel stock, capable of 4 rail, 3 rail, OHLE and diesel running. Restore the pre WW2 services using the Circle's tracks...Aylesbusy, Windsor, Southend perhaps?

[amershamsi]

it takes a lot longer to go via Wycombe (though I do admit, I'd send the MK-Aylesbury services to Wycombe to give a N-S bucks route). You'd also need to reinstate lots of the passing loops, etc on the GC/GW joint (and at the Sudburys, Wembley Stadium and rebuilding Northolt Park, which never had them), and probably double track Princes Risborough-Aylesbury in order to have decent service on there.