"Chris Henderson" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

It didn't seem much different in practice to the Tyne & Wear metro (the only
other one I'm familiar with) - a similar proportion of it is undeground.

Yes , but at least that has some route specifically built as a metro and runs
metro type rolling stock with metro type frequencies.


And since when was the whole of the London Underground designed as one metro
system? My knowledge is patchy but I know most of the eastern end of the
Central Line was BR track until 1945 or thereabouts.

Indeed. But then they went and built another 5 miles of tube gauge tunnel
from leytonstone. Anyway, theres always a grey area with the definition of
a metro as in all things. But you have to admit that a system such as
liverpools that uses mainline rolling stock , is 99% above ground and runs
intercity is not exactly a metro in the sense that most people would describe
one (they're limited to a single city for a start!). Some natty rebranding
doesn't really change that.

B2003