wrote in message

On 6 Aug, 16:15, Basil Jet wrote:

I believe that plan died a few years ago.

I've certainly seen it alive more recently than that; I think it's
died and been revived several times over the years. I suspect that
it's probably dead now, at least until the present economic climate
improves.

Probably longer than that -- Chiltern is now more focused on serving
longer distance routes (Brum, and soon Oxford, and maybe even Miltpn
Keynes), not suburban London. It provides a minimal service to its other
London stations, and wouldn't want to have stopping local trains holding
up its increasing number of fast, longer distance trains.

On Aug 7, 12:36*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message



On 6 Aug, 16:15, Basil Jet wrote:

I believe that plan died a few years ago.

I've certainly seen it alive more recently than that; I think it's
died and been revived several times over the years. *I suspect that
it's probably dead now, at least until the present economic climate
improves.

Probably longer than that -- Chiltern is now more focused on serving
longer distance routes (Brum, and soon Oxford, and maybe even Miltpn
Keynes), not suburban London. It provides a minimal service to its other
London stations, and wouldn't want to have stopping local trains holding
up its increasing number of fast, longer distance trains.

If that is indeed the case, I wonder if shallow travelators west to
Edgware Road and east to Baker St. from Marylebone might be preferred
options instead? Yeah there's the Bakerloo, but it's pointless if all
you want to do is change to the SSL lines one station away, as it
takes so long going down to the platforms and back up again. I still
think moving the Met interchange to West Hampstead is worthwhile
though, if only for the NLL and Thameslink interchanges it adds.
Passive provision (i.e. spaces) for Chiltern platforms would probably
be more than sufficient for the time being.