London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.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.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/23/2016 8:40 PM, Recliner wrote:
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.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.

Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 8:40 PM, Recliner wrote:
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.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.

Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 8:40 PM, Recliner wrote:
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.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone
to Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to
central London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an
excruciatingly slow LU or LO train.

Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In message , at 03:24:05
on Sun, 25 Dec 2016, remarked:

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.
--
Roland Perry

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 03:24:05 on
Sun, 25 Dec 2016, remarked:

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater
London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more recently
than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems


--
Roland Perry


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
03:24:05 on Sun, 25 Dec 2016, remarked:

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as they
existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as they
existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting in
residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police. There was
no attempt to align boundaries until much later.

--
Mike D

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article , (Michael R N
Dolbear) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as
they existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting
in residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police.
There was no attempt to align boundaries until much later.

It was only done when the Mayor was created as Police Commissar for London.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/25/2016 1:18 AM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 8:40 PM, Recliner wrote:
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.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.

Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Thanks for the update.

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

"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 ?

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, 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.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

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.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.

With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, 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.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just
before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of
elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days",
which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had
no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my
day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear"
to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very
powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting
for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Unfortunately, the general public doesn't do logic at all, refuses to
believe experts or be rational at all much of the time.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.

With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.

These arguments were done to death in the Herbert report. After that, a ring
of authorities round London, including Epsom and Watford, fought
successfully to stay out of Greater London and the result was the London
Government Act 1963 with only minor adjustments to the boundary since.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

e27002 aurora wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 09:57 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:26 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 09:57 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.

So a bit like US wannabes who've never set foot in the place ?

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, 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.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, 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.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.

No actually. Greater London was first /thought of/ before the Metropolitan
Board of Works was created in 1854. The idea of a more extensive area was
considered then but not adopted, apart from strange exceptions like the
Wimbledon & Putney Commons Conservators, a public body which, unusually,
straddled the London boundary.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

Charles Ellson wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 20:19 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:26 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 09:57 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, 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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.

So a bit like US wannabes who've never set foot in the place ?

Not at all like that. You seem to be making an unwarranted assumption.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 05:14:34 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Unfortunately, the general public doesn't do logic at all, refuses to
believe experts or be rational at all much of the time.

Given Whitehall's track record, this is hardly surprising.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.


These arguments were done to death in the Herbert report. After that, a ring
of authorities round London, including Epsom and Watford, fought
successfully to stay out of Greater London and the result was the London
Government Act 1963 with only minor adjustments to the boundary since.

The Mandarins in Whitehall want a uniform county around each
metropolitan centre. In reality the world's most successful
conurbations have evolved contrary to that model.

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 2016\12\30 08:38, e27002 aurora wrote:

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

Sorry for what?

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:52:11 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\12\30 08:38, e27002 aurora wrote:

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

Sorry for what?

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

Would have happily obliged. But, there are posters, like yourself,
worthy of a reply.

Happy New Year.