"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...

Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip.

I thought re-instatement of the quadruple track between Northolt Junction
and West Ruislip was supposed to have been done under Evergreen. Was that
dropped in the end? It's not a long section but it would be useful. As
anyone who lives in the Birmingham area will know[1], the provisions of even
short lengths of 4-track helps run a more robust mix of stoppers and fasts
on an essentially 2-track line.

[1] XC and Worcester fasts delayed by cross-city on the west suburban, ditto
south of Longbridge because there is four-tracking but (duh!) the electric
wires are on the fast line (oh, and we've put in a 15 mph turnout from the
down fast to the Barnt Green platforms), ditto at Burton on Trent (four
tracks but the tracks and platforms are all in the wrong place), ditto (in
different ways) Coventry to Brum to Wolves, and Dorridge to Moor Street.

Regards

Jonathan

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote:


Edwarr Road would have function much like Baker Street, but in the
opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea. When LPTB took
over they extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead.

And for many years, the train describers at Edgware Road had such exotic
destinations as Aylesbury on them.

--
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is
still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do
Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already
do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link
somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and
Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run Metroland
trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street
platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between
Baker St and Finchley Road.

Aha. Now i'm starting to get my head round this. The situation at the time
was four Met tracks north of Finchley Road, one fast pair heading to
Metroland, and a slow pair heading to Stanmore, with a single pair south
of there into Baker Street, is that right? The tube that Adrian mentioned
would have run all the way from Finchley Road [1] to Edgware Road,
allowing the Metroland trains to run to Edgware Road and then Aldgate (or
wherever), leaving the Stanmore trains with exclusive the existing line to
Baker Street. The new tube would presumably have been non-stop, whereas
the Baker Street line then had the three now-closed stations at Swiss
Cottage, Marlborough Road and Lords on it, so it made sense to use that
route for the slows.

What i don't get is where the Stanmore trains would have gone after Baker
Street. There can't have been capacity on the Circle line for both lots of
trains, so either they would have terminated at Baker Street, or
connection to the Bakerloo was part of the plan. I suppose that the
Metropolitan had a mindset of being a normal railway, with lines running
into a terminus on the edge of central London, with the fact that some
trains went on into town being merely a bonus - Baker Street was London
Bridge to Aldgate's Charing Cross. That would mean they were quite happy
for all those Stanmore trains to terminate at Baker Street.

tom

[1] In fact, Kilburn - just found this in CULG.

--
London has a suburb for every emotion. -- Cliff Laine

Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and
Metropolitan alignments separate?

The GCML runs to the side of, but out of site, Finchley Road Station.

Not really... there is a street (Canfield Place) between them.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:56:17 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and
Metropolitan alignments separate?

The GCML runs to the side of, but out of site, Finchley Road Station.

Not really... there is a street (Canfield Place) between them.

It's not that much of a street, being only a couple of dozen or so
buildings filling the gap between Finchley Road station and the
cutting on the GC line. For practical purposes the lines are still
alongside each other as can be seen on a map or aerial photograph.

On Apr 12, 5:15*am, Guy Gorton
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Adrian





wrote:
On Apr 11, 4:15*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote

As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

IIRC that was the arrangement at all stations between Wembley Hill and
Princes Risborough (both inclusive), with the exceptions of Denham Golf
Club, Seer green, and Saunderton. The only 4-track section was from Northolt
Junction to West Ruislip. Is it still the case that, if an all-stations
train is let out of Marylebone immediately in front of a fast, the fast
can't overtake until Princes Risborough?

Peter

You are I believe correct and that it is the case. *Even this is an
improvement. *For many years Princes Risborough was reduced to one
thru platform, and I think, one bay.

In the present timetable, there is not a single "all-stations" train
out of Marylebone on the High Wycombe line. *There are no
"many-station" trains that go as far as Princes Risborough, most
terminating at High Wycombe with a few destined for the turn-back
siding at Gerrards Cross.
So it is true that no overtaking movements can take place between
Marylebone and P.R but I suspect there is rarely a call for such a
facility.
In the UP direction, overtaking can take place at P R, H W and West
Ruislip and does so at the latter every morning. *I have seen that
taking place at HW one evening when a fast Up swept past a
late-running train in the Up platform by using the fast facing
crossover west of the station put in to allow most trains in either
direction to use the town-side platform a few years ago.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the timetable needs on your
local line.

In response I can only say, that the current situation looks fine.
But, if growth continues then some of the lost capacity may, nay will,
be needed.


Adrian

On Apr 12, 6:46*pm, TheOneKEA wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:11 am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

TheOneKEA wrote:

Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip.

Although the down platform at West Ruislip occupies the trackbed of the old
down slow line and would need to be demolished and set back again to its
original alignment. Likewise the up platform at Gerrards Cross (and, as you
mention, the new down platform under construction at Denham).

If you're going to mention platforms, don't forget the up platform at
South Ruislip.

I can almost forgive the use of the formation as a foundation for the
new down platform at Denham, but it still seems shortsighted to block
the formation like that.

The news (to me) about the Northolt to West Ruislip section is
particularly sad. It was a fine section of mainline. I predict that
within 10 years the lost capacity will be needed.

If money had to be spent on that section I could think of more useful
ways to have done it. At West Ruislip and improved interchange could
be very helpful. There should be Cross Platform interchange available
between the terminating Central Line and the down Chiltern (GCGW)
platform.

On Apr 13, 2:05*am, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
"TheOneKEA" wrote in message

...



Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip.

I thought re-instatement of the quadruple track between Northolt Junction
and West Ruislip was supposed to have been done under Evergreen. Was that
dropped in the end? It's not a long section but it would be useful. As
anyone who lives in the Birmingham area will know[1], the provisions of even
short lengths of 4-track helps run a more robust mix of stoppers and fasts
on an essentially 2-track line.

[1] XC and Worcester fasts delayed by cross-city on the west suburban, ditto
south of Longbridge because there is four-tracking but (duh!) the electric
wires are on the fast line (oh, and we've put in a 15 mph turnout from the
down fast to the Barnt Green platforms), ditto at Burton on Trent (four
tracks but the tracks and platforms are all in the wrong place), ditto (in
different ways) Coventry to Brum to Wolves, and Dorridge to Moor Street.

Regards

Jonathan

I agree with everything you say.

On Apr 13, 3:56*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and
Metropolitan alignments separate?

The GCML runs to the side of, but out of site, Finchley Road Station.

Not really... there is a street (Canfield Place) between them.

Thank you for correcting me. I have only ever observed this section
from the train.

Adrian

On Apr 13, 6:27*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is
still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do
Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already
do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link
somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and
Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run Metroland
trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street
platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between
Baker St and Finchley Road.

Aha. Now i'm starting to get my head round this. The situation at the time
was four Met tracks north of Finchley Road, one fast pair heading to
Metroland, and a slow pair heading to Stanmore, with a single pair south
of there into Baker Street, is that right? The tube that Adrian mentioned
would have run all the way from Finchley Road [1] to Edgware Road,
allowing the Metroland trains to run to Edgware Road and then Aldgate (or
wherever), leaving the Stanmore trains with exclusive the existing line to
Baker Street. The new tube would presumably have been non-stop, whereas
the Baker Street line then had the three now-closed stations at Swiss
Cottage, Marlborough Road and Lords on it, so it made sense to use that
route for the slows.

Broadly speaking: Yes. I read an account of this many years ago. I
do not remember the title of the book. I thought the intention was to
run Stanmore trains to High St Kensington and on thru Gloucester Rd.
Colin Rosenstiel thinks otherwise, and I cannot argue with him.


What i don't get is where the Stanmore trains would have gone after Baker
Street. There can't have been capacity on the Circle line for both lots of
trains, so either they would have terminated at Baker Street, or
connection to the Bakerloo was part of the plan. I suppose that the
Metropolitan had a mindset of being a normal railway, with lines running
into a terminus on the edge of central London, with the fact that some
trains went on into town being merely a bonus - Baker Street was London
Bridge to Aldgate's Charing Cross. That would mean they were quite happy
for all those Stanmore trains to terminate at Baker Street.

See my remarks above. The Met. managed to avoid the 1923 grouping by
claiming to be part of London's mass transit system. They did try to
avoid becoming part of the LTPB by claiming to be a main line
railway. That time they failed. :-) The Met. separated their
property business and continued to exist as a property company for
many years.

Adrian


tom

[1] In fact, Kilburn - just found this in CULG.

--
London has a suburb for every emotion. -- Cliff Laine-