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-