In article ,
Peter Masson wrote:

Living where I do the initials M&SWJ are more normally associated with
the long lost route of a company between Cheltenham and Andover,what
did they stand for in this reference?

Another company with the same name - Midland and South Western Junction,
whose 3.75 mile line linked the Midland at Welsh Harp with the North and
South Western Junction at Acton Wells.

Often known as the Old MS&WJ to reduce confusion. It was eventually
completely taken over by the Midland.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Sep 14, 1:20*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:11:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"

wrote:

"77002" *wrote

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ

Living where I do the initials M&SWJ are more normally associated with
the long lost route of a company between Cheltenham and Andover,what
did they stand for in this reference?

Both railways where named the "Midland and South Western Junction".
They were never both corporate entities at the same time. The one in
north west London had been absorbed into the time your M&SWJ was
completed.

On Sep 14, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. *Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother
take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather
than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the
link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what?


He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want
access to the town center. Others will use the station for
interchange purposes.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.

On Sep 14, 2:08*pm, 77002 wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:20*pm, wrote:



On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:11:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"

wrote:

"77002" *wrote

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ

Living where I do the initials M&SWJ are more normally associated with
the long lost route of a company between Cheltenham and Andover,what
did they stand for in this reference?

Both railways where named the "Midland and South Western Junction".
They were never both corporate entities at the same time. *The one in
north west London had been absorbed into the time your M&SWJ was
completed.


Let me try again: "The one in north west London had been absorbed into
the Midland by the time your M&SWJ was completed".

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want

I'm sure there are some. Most of whom will take the car if they're going
shopping there.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.

The only reason people take the tube to london is because driving there is
slow and expensive. The same does not apply to driving and parking in
watford.

I still don't see a viable business case for the link.

B2003

On 14/09/2012 14:25, 77002 wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:08 pm, wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:20 pm, wrote:



On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:11:19 +0100, "Peter Masson"

wrote:

"77002" wrote

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ

Living where I do the initials M&SWJ are more normally associated with
the long lost route of a company between Cheltenham and Andover,what
did they stand for in this reference?

Both railways where named the "Midland and South Western Junction".
They were never both corporate entities at the same time. The one in
north west London had been absorbed into the time your M&SWJ was
completed.


Let me try again: "The one in north west London had been absorbed into
the Midland by the time your M&SWJ was completed".



I thought for a minute Dr Who had been let loose on the railways :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:04:17 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:21:49 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Sep 14, 12:06*am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
"allantracy" *wrote in message

...

He also informed me of something I had not realised, namely, that
there are no longer any day time fast trains on the Met to Amersham
(or Chesham), only during the peaks and, even then, small in number.

And only inbound in the morning peak and outbound in the evening peak.

Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

You are 50-odd years too late. Had the Met been undergoing
modernisation now then you might have been looking at something on the
lines of OHLE in "the country" with dual-voltage stock on the lines of
cl.378s with suitable seating. ATM you are dealing with a done deed
and further rearrangement of services on the lines of limiting TfL to
its own territory is not something likely to happen unless there is
further serious rebuilding of the Met for some reason.

Should they? Do you really think people want to lose their direct
link into the City even if it is a tad slower than in the past?

Are you also advocating that the Croxley Rail Link should be scrapped
too as that will be operated by LU?

Both the DC lines and the Met historically involved some element of
joint working or stock ownership so stopping TfL's kingdom at the
county boundary would not inevitably preclude through-running so that
e.g. services from Aylesbury to/through the City of London could be
restored.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

Ideal in whose terms? At present fares are relatively low as far as
Amersham due to TfL's farescale. They would rocket if they became the
sole responsibility of Chiltern. Would the good burghers of the
Chilterns really want to see their fares increase substantially?

In the longer term Chiltern's Aylesbury route should be extended to
Milton Keynes thru Granborough Rd, and Birmingham Snow Hill thru
Verney Junction and Banbury.

You might be smoking the wrong stuff again unless you have a cunning
plan to revive the countryside house-building involved in the creation
of Metroland.

That might take a tad more vision than
currently found in Westminster and Whitehall.

And just where is the demand for such a service in order to justify
the not insignificant investment that would have to paid from
Whitehall's coffers?

Let us see what, if anything, happens when EastWest Rail opens and
some rail services begin to be operated. You need to walk before you
can run.

On 2012\09\14 14:23, 77002 wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

I'm struggling to think why a passenger for central london will bother
take the round-the-houses route from watford junction via the met rather
than getting a train direct to euston. I don't see the business case for the
link. Is a huge volume of amersham - watford traffic expected or what?


He wouldn't. But there are any number of folks living close to Met.
line stations who would like to reach central Watford. Some want
access to the town center. Others will use the station for
interchange purposes.

Between say Wembley Park and Amersham there is considerable population.


So if the purpose is to benefit Watford shops and screw Harrow shops,
why is TfL even considering it?

Recliner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:11*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"77002" *wrote



Eventually TfL should withdraw services north of Moor Park. *They are
clearly clueless with regard to the needs of suburban passengers.

Ideally the Chiltern Route to Aylesbury should be electrified at
25kV. *Chiltern would take over all Metropolitan services north of
Moor Park.

One of the early iterations of Crossrail involved a branch from Old Oak
Common, joining the M&SWJ and then linking with the Chiltern Met line at
Neasden. It would then have taken over the Met Fast Lines from
Harrow-on-the-Hill, and all Met services (apart from Watford) beyond Watford
South Junction. All, out to Aylesbury and Chesham, would have been
electrified at 25 kV AC OHLE. LUL would have retained Uxbridge and Watford,
and Marylebone would have retained all Joint Line services. In the event a
business case could not be made for electrifying out to Aylesbury, and
Heathrow became a much more important destination for Crossrail.

Thank you Peter, I remember the proposal. Since then demand for rail
travel has increased. Moreover, TfL have focussed on their core
market. The new trains are not suitable for outer reaches of today's
Metropolitan Line.

The S8 stock will be ideal when the Met. reaches Watford Junction thru
the Croxley Link. Chiltern are an operator more geared to the longer
distance passenger.

That's certainly true, but I think that means Birmingham, rather than
Aylesbury and Chesham. And Chiltern has already said it's
unenthusiastic about running through to Bletchley.


Chiltern is losing money.

On 14/09/2012 00:06, Jack Taylor wrote:
"allantracy" wrote in message
...

He also informed me of something I had not realised, namely, that
there are no longer any day time fast trains on the Met to Amersham
(or Chesham), only during the peaks and, even then, small in number.

And only inbound in the morning peak and outbound in the evening peak.

I have also noticed this. Why have they done this?

It reminds me of the A service on the New York City Subway in the late
'80s.

A trains to and from Queens would run on the fast track in Brooklyn at
almost all times. Then, at one point, they decided to run all A trains
on local tracks, with fast trains only running at peak hours.

They switched it back to the previous operation at some time later,
though I don't know when.

Perhaps they will also happen with the Metropolitan Line -- sooner than
later.