Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
"77002" wrote Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers. Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at 25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of Moor Park. One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford, and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail. Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "77002" *wrote Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers. Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at 25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of Moor Park. One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford, and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail. Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's Metropolitan Line. The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote: On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "77002" *wrote Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers. Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at 25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of Moor Park. One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford, and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail. Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's Metropolitan Line. The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. That's certainly true, but I think that means Birmingham, rather than Aylesbury and Chesham. And Chiltern has already said it's unenthusiastic about running through to Bletchley. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), 77002 wrote: On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "77002" *wrote Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers. Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at 25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of Moor Park. One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford, and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail. Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's Metropolitan Line. The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. That's certainly true, but I think that means Birmingham, rather than Aylesbury and Chesham. And Chiltern has already said it's unenthusiastic about running through to Bletchley. Chiltern is losing money. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what? B2003 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Sep 14, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT) 77002 wrote: The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. *Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what? He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met. line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want access to the town center. Others will use the station for interchange purposes. Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met. line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want I'm sure there are some. Most of whom will take the car if they're going shopping there. Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population. The only reason people take the tube to london is because driving there is slow and expensive. The same does not apply to driving and parking in watford. I still don't see a viable business case for the link. B2003 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On 2012\09\14 14:23, 77002 wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:57 pm, wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT) 77002 wrote: The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer distance passenger. I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what? He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met. line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want access to the town center. Others will use the station for interchange purposes. Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population. So if the purpose is to benefit Watford shops and screw Harrow shops, why is TfL even considering it? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:11:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "77002" wrote Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers. Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at 25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of Moor Park. One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford, and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail. Yes, I remember that proposal, which was live for several years. I think a link with the WCML main line would make more sense, with no conflicts on electrification systems. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Metropolitan Extending East.
Living where I do the initials M&SWJ are more normally associated with the long lost route of a company between Cheltenham and Andover,what did they stand for in this reference? Another company with the same name - Midland and South Western Junction, whose 3.75 mile line linked the Midland at Welsh Harp with the North and South Western Junction at Acton Wells. Peter |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Extending point-to-point seasons next year | London Transport | |||
The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line | London Transport | |||
When could you change to the Metropolitan at Aldgate East? | London Transport | |||
Travelcard extending? | London Transport | |||
Extending the congestion charge zone | London Transport |