Diversions to Baker Street Met - 1970s

[trc666]

I recall reading somewhere a while back that for a few weekends in the early 1970s, Bakerloo trains were diverted at Finchley Road to Baker Street Met platforms. Was this to do with platform reconstruction work?

[Tom]

Probably not platform reconstruction works, but may have had something to to with the construction of the Jubilee Line. (Step plate junction at Baker St perhaps?)

[Harsig]

tom said:

Probably not platform reconstruction works, but may have had something to to with the construction of the Jubilee Line. (Step plate junction at Baker St perhaps?)

That is exactly what it was.

[Deleted]

harsig said:

tom said:

Probably not platform reconstruction works, but may have had something to to with the construction of the Jubilee Line. (Step plate junction at Baker St perhaps?)

That is exactly what it was.

And IIRC it was only the Stanmore branch that was diverted; the location of the works meant that the Watford-Buffalo service continued to run normally.

Do you have a copy of the TTN for the works? I'd be interested to know if additional QP or Willesden reversers were put on to maintain the core frequency.

[mrfs42]

I've read the TTN for this but not got a copy; as far as I can remember there were no additional reversers, the gaps in service frequencies could cope with running to Baker Street (upstairs). 3 Sundays in 1977, if memory serves.

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

And IIRC it was only the Stanmore branch that was diverted; the location of the works meant that the Watford-Buffalo service continued to run normally.

It would have been slightly difficult to divert the Watford/Queens Park service into the Met platforms.

[Deleted]

jim said:

theonekea said:

And IIRC it was only the Stanmore branch that was diverted; the location of the works meant that the Watford-Buffalo service continued to run normally.

It would have been slightly difficult to divert the Watford/Queens Park service into the Met platforms.

Of course - I was talking about a suspension from Paddington to Piccadilly Circus on the Bakerloo, not a diversion of the Watford service into Baker Street Met.

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

jim said:

It would have been slightly difficult to divert the Watford/Queens Park service into the Met platforms.

Of course - I was talking about a suspension from Paddington to Piccadilly Circus on the Bakerloo, not a diversion of the Watford service into Baker Street Met.

You was thinking two steps ahead of me, I hadn't thought about that

[trc666]

Hmm...

Watford Junction > Willesden Junction LL > (mainline shunt) > Willesden Junction HL > Gunnersbury (reverse) > Hammersmith > High Street Kensington > Edgware Road > Baker Street (Circle/H&C) > (mainline shunt) > Baker Street (Met)

;D

[amershamsi]

Was the ease of the diversion of the Stanmore branch the reason for the split being that way? it seems odd that the N-S Bakerloo got the branch that was more E-W, whereas the Fleet line, which was to be roughly E-W got the N-S branch. Also seems odd that Marylebone and Paddington weren't linked to the City via the Fleet, giving another route, other than the Circle, for them to reach it, then again, Marylebone wasn't important, and Paddington was doing OK with just the circle/met linking it to the city (though the Bakerloo was a bit crowded!) back in the early 70s.

[Deleted]

At a guess, keeping those stations linked to Waterloo would be more important to facilitate cross-london rail passengers. As the Fleet wasn't going to go to Waterloo, this might have been a factor.

As it turned out, doing it the other way would have severed those stations from Charing Cross mainline instead.

[Deleted]

Ease of engineering may have come into it, as the original route of the Bakerloo was towards Paddington. There was probably also "mind set": LT engineers had recognised that connecting the Stanmore branch to the Bakerloo had been a mistake, giving a junction too close to town, and were seeking to undo the error.

[mandgc]

The connection from Finchley Road to the Bakerloo was planned even before the LPTB came into existance in 1933. No doubt it was thought at the time that there was spare capacity on the Bakerloo.

This was before the 1935 extensions were planned and financed. The Metropolitan Line certainly benefited from the connection. By the time it was opened the War had started and disrupted passenger movements considerably.

[Ben]

Theres a book by one of the people from Subterrania Britanica with a few diagrams concerning new tube lines from 20s-50s. The Bakerloo and Jubilee were to have a junction á-la Camden Town to give both routes 2 southbound destinations.

[mandgc]

The increase in traffic from the Met. Extension line to the West End via the Bakerloo may also have been caused by the transfer of 'business' from the City to the West End owing to bomb damage. Before the War the West End was mainly retail and it is only since that 'offices' have invaded the area.

[Deleted]

And now the offices are transferring back, both to the City and to the East End (including Canary Wharf), which resulted in and was assisted by the creation of the JLE, which was connected to the Jubilee Line, which was connected to the Stanmore branch during a series of diversions in the 1970s!

Full circle

[mandgc]

Full Circle.

Which only goes to show how difficult it is to plan for future developments !

[Deleted]

mandgc said:

The connection from Finchley Road to the Bakerloo was planned even before the LPTB came into existance in 1933.

Sorry, but it was not. Before the LTPB, the Met and Bakerloo were under different management, and there was no thought of joint running.

Maybe you are thinking of the Met's plans to tunnel from Finchley Road to Edgware Road.

[mandgc]

Finchley Road to Bakerloo.

I seem to remember reading that after the LPTB Bill was passed by Parliament and before the Board came into existence Lord Ashfield initiated an investigation into this connection . I cannot trace any support for this assumption.
All previous suggestions for relief lines were to connect with the Metropolitan at the London end and it was only with the knowledge that the two lines would become under one management that this suggestion became plausible.

[Deleted]

It was, of course, well-known that the Met had operational problems between Finchley Road and Baker Street. Once it became clear that the Met would be (in effect) taken over by the Underground Group, it may well be that minds in the Group considered that the problem could be tackled by extending the Bakerloo to Finchley Road.

But I have never seen any documentation of a formal plan before the formation of the LTPB.

[mandgc]

The Met. seemed to dither about for ten years with it's plans to relieve the double line South of Finchley Road, ( perhaps a source of finance was also a hinderence in what was to be a very expensive undertaking.) The additional passengers from their new Stanmore branch didn't help either.
As things turned out the Met. at Baker Street was relieved of a large portion of its Extension Line passengers and trains.. The Bakerloo branch appears to have been the cheapest and simplest solution.

[Deleted]

Finance was indeed probably the problem: it would have been expensive to built full-size tunnels from Finchley Road to Edgware Road.

Plus it has never been clear to me how such a duplication would have eased the Met's problems, given that the tracks from Baker St to Moorgate were all heavily used during the peaks.

[mandgc]

Frank W Goudie, in his article "Finchley Road to Baker Street Bottleneck" ( Railway World,Nov '85 ) mentions the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Finchley Road "which the Underground Group had already considered before the formation of the LPTB" . He does not give any source for this statement.

[Deleted]

From what I have read (which is many books), it seems unlikely that the Met would have willingly given up any of its traffic to the Underground Group.

On the other hand, Ashfield, Pick & co were never short of ideas on how to expand their empire.

And, of course, the formation of LTPB was itself seen by many people as just a way for the Underground Group to take over the Met, LCC tramways, and private bus operators.

[mandgc]

Once the LPTB Bill had passed through Parliament and was 'in the bag' Lord Ashfield ( or his minions) would have be looking at ways of integrating the Met. in with the rest of the system. The relief of the Finchley Road to Baker Street section would have been well up the list.

[Ben]

In the book 'Londons Secret Tubes' (I think its called that) it mentions something about the Bakerloo relieving the Met, and gives a date of 1924.

[Deleted]

if you would like to see a picture of a 1938 stock at Baker Street Met - there is one in 'The Bakerloo Line - an illustrated history' by Mike Horne.