On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill. Beyond Aylesbury there is upcoming
development at Aylesbury Vale.

Given modern control system and multi-voltage trains, it might be more
economic to lay down a third rail from Marylebone to Harrow, while
retain the fourth rail between there and Amersham the same way other
section which run both 3rd and 3rd/4th rail together.

This would avoid the cost of raising the tunnel between Marylebone and
Finchley Road, and of rebuilding bridges.

This is also something I have suggested for some main line situations,
too - 25KvAC in the country where they can use the power for speed,
and 3rd rail in the cities to avoid the cost of major infrastructure
rebuilding.

In article ,
Robin9 wrote:
'Clive D. W. Feather[_2_ Wrote:
What bridge? The only bridge on the Met. was demolished many years ago.

Or do you mean the one on the line from Milton Keynes about half a mile
east of Verney Junction?

I'm not certain - which is why I inserted "I guess" - but having
looked at the Ian Allan Pre-grouping Atlas, the line coming in
from Aylesbury and Quainton Road seems most likely. (The A-Z
of Buckinghamshire is totally uninformative on this point)

I was driving from Winslow along Verney Road. A railway
embankment came in on my right. Shortly before Verney
Junction the road goes under an old railway bridge. Now,
assuming the railway to my right is the trackbed of the old
route from Winslow and Bletchley, the bridge brought in the
line from Quainton Road. What I need is a 1930s Ordnance
Survey map of the area!

Your wish is my command.
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom...310&layers=172

Slide the slider to overlay maps and aerial view.
Other map scales and dates are available.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

I don't say it cannot be done but I do say it would lose money.
It most certainly would not do as well as most other Home Counties
commuter routes because at present rural Buckinghamshire does
not have the population. Winslow is a small town, Verney Junction
no more than a hamlet. Only if we go back to pre-Thatcher social
planning and move large numbers of Londoners out to this particular
area - extremely unlikely - will these small towns generate enough
business to justify the kind of investment you are suggesting.

Many thanks, though, for the historical background.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.
snip

On 2016-04-17 10:44:16 +0000, e27002 aurora said:

As you say the flyover is intact. Although the last time I saw it,
small pieces of concrete seemed to have flaked and detached.
Once there were some platforms on the west side of Bletchley Station
for service from Oxford terminating at Bletchley. They were destroyed
several decades back by the nationalized railway.

They are sort-of still there, but are of no use at all for current
operations and so are not maintained.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Expensive. Why not electrify from Harrow to Marylebone with 3rd (or
3rd/4th) rail? No bridge and tunnel rebuilding.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

Aren't there proposals to link up with the Varsity line via Quainton
Road and Calvert?

On 2016\04\17 10:48, Robin9 wrote:

What I need is a 1930s Ordnance
Survey map of the area!


http://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

has a selection of maps, including 1920s OS. The map changing widget is
in the top right corner.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Expensive. Why not electrify from Harrow to Marylebone with 3rd (or
3rd/4th) rail? No bridge and tunnel rebuilding.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

Aren't there proposals to link up with the Varsity line via Quainton
Road and Calvert?

Yes, using the existing single track line from Aylesbury Vale to Calvert,
probably realigned slightly where HS2 takes over some of its track bed.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:29:31 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Expensive. Why not electrify from Harrow to Marylebone with 3rd (or
3rd/4th) rail? No bridge and tunnel rebuilding.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham,

More expensive, obsolete, less efficient and it's heading toward 25kV
territory.

just as the DC line does beyond Harrow?

That was electrified over a century ago. The substations used to trip
if 313s ran in pairs so they're possibly still a bit close to their
limit with 378s. If it wasn't for the Bakerloo Line trains it might
have been converted to 25kV by now.

The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

Aren't there proposals to link up with the Varsity line via Quainton
Road and Calvert?