London Banter - View Single Post

e27002 aurora

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:25:35 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\31 12:42, wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.

I don't know what point you're making. What's the difference between a
metro and a suburban railway? Which is better?

Corrected version.

Its horses for courses. Metro is very high frequency service
interval, basic seating, and more doors maybe three pairs per car.

Suburban trains maybe less frequent, accommodate less standees, and
have more passenger amenities. Cars may only have two pairs of doors.

But, the variations are infinite. They can certainly share tracks.
The Metropolitan ran an intense service on the Circle Line and a
Suburban service to Aylesbury. The Met. Also had rural branches.
Hybrid trains are also possible. Search for "North Shore Line" and
Electroliner. Enjoy!