On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:14:04 PM UTC, Ian Batten wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 13:18:04 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 5:24 PM, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:11:10 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:25:43 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.

It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.

There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.

The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.

IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.

Why do you say that?

It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.

In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.

It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.

OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains. One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.

Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.

You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:23:53 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:14:04 PM UTC, Ian Batten wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 13:18:04 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 5:24 PM, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:11:10 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:25:43 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.

It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.

There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.

The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.

IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.

Why do you say that?

It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.

In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.

It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.

OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains.

That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.

One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.

Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.

You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.

On 12/28/2016 9:46 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.

The suburban line from Euston went to Watford from its inception.
Nobody at the time could have thought of Watford as either in London or
a suburb, indeed we did not think it was at the time I left in 1970. It
just made sense from a transport point of view.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

On 2016\12\28 22:53, Recliner wrote:

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.

On 12/28/2016 11:44 PM, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\12\28 22:53, Recliner wrote:

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.

My part of Northwest Birmingham was in Staffordshire, while most of what
became the enlarged Birmingham in 1911 was in Warwickshire.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/29/2016 7:20 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

It took me till 1970.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 2016\12\29 07:20, Graeme Wall wrote:

The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity.

That explains my complete lack of nostalgia.