London Banter - View Single Post

Colin Rosenstiel · April 15th 08, 12:14 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article
,
(Adrian) wrote:

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.

My source is "Steam to Silver" by J Graeme Bruce, first edition, 1970,
pages 68 and 69. The relevant text reads:

"The Metropolitan realised that some relief to the bottleneck between
Finchley Road and Baker Street was required, especially as these two
tracks carried the country service of the railway as well as catering for
a local service calling at Swiss Cottage, Marlborough Road, and St.
John's Wood. Plans were prepared for a connection from a point near
Kilburn & Brondesbury to Edgware Road, in a 15 ft. 6 in. tube, so that a
junction to the Circle Line would be made in the same direction as that
arranged at Baker Street.

In anticipation of this connection Edgware Road station was rebuilt in
1926 with four platforms as existing today, utilizing the space which had
been vacated by moving the old Metropolitan Railway engine sheds to
Neasden. The- train destination indicators placed on the' new platforms
for many years contained descriptions such as 'Aylesbury Line' which were
never required, because' the connection to Edgware Road was never built.
The congestion in the bottleneck, however, grew so that the number of
stopping trains between Finchley Road and Baker Street was severely
limited and subsequently stops were not, in fact, made during the peak
periods.

Relief came under the 1935/40 New Works Programme by extending the
Bakerloo tube to Finchley Road and re-arranging the tracks so that the
Metropolitan fast lines were on the outside with the Bakerloo in the
middle. The Bakerloo then took over the operation of the Stanmore branch,
including the burrowing junction built north of Wembley Park which
eliminated the problems created at this station by the previous
expansion."

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.

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

The Met still uses Baker St as a terminus for a lot of its services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel