On 2015\12\30 10:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:54:23 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\29 12:01, Basil Jet wrote:
I'd be happy for the line that links Highgate with the City to be called
the Whittington Line, although there is already a line starting with W.

Alternatively the Stane Street Line, since it follows the Roman road of
that name from Colliers Wood to London Bridge.

Does not exactly have a pleasing ring, does it?

How about the Nonsuch Line? I know it doesn't reach Nonsuch Park, but it
is heading in the right direction.

On 2016\01\01 05:50, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:48:09 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\29 12:43, Basil Jet wrote:
"When the extension opens, two-thirds of Charing Cross branch trains
will continue to Battersea giving 16 trains an hour, with the remainder
continuing to turn on the Kennington loop or going on to Morden."

So, by analogy with the Bakerloo line, why not call it the Barnden
line or the Mornet line?

And then the Battersea branch could be the Barnsea or Batternet line.

.... Batterware. (The lines will be split so that Golders Green Depot and
Morden Depot get a line each).

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:33:48 +0000, wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:33:29 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:



The Metropolitan Railway was a fine organization. Would that it had
survived.



The Metropolitan was a full service railway with staffed stations and
trains. It was a freight, livestock, and parcels carrier. It used
rolling stock suitable for the services in question.

All those services will have dwindled away post WW2 to more efficient
road distribution for the relatively small area it served.

Quite so. But, in 1935 the Metropolitan lost its ability to evolve as
a Railway and Property company. The LPTB stripped its assets and
reduced it to an "Underground" style line with indecent haste.

No thought was given to how parts of the Metropolitan Network outwith
London's immediate environs could be utilized. A joint LNER LMS
service from Marylebone to Banbury thru Verney Junction would have
maintained the local links thru the County of Buckingham.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued.
They didn't elsewhere so why should the outskirts of London be any
different , at least in other areas Container and mineral traffic in
bulk provided some freight revenue on the British Network but In don't
think there would ever be a need for intermodals or bulk freight
movements in to Harrow or Baker street.

Had it survived it would have gone to Marylebone. But you are 15
years into the post Metropolitan Railway future.


Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.


In that case a business with nothing else but intense passenger
operation with the need for expensive capital assets to handle the
morning and evening passenger flows which are then underutilized for
the rest of the time so to it needs subsidising by outside means.
Whether the Met could still make a sufficient return to investors as a
whole railway or just as a TOC running on government* owned tracks we
will never know.

Indeed, having survived municipalization the Metropolitan would,
probably as part of BR, face Barbara Castle. So, this is a no win
situation.

In today's conditions with many more passengers traveling even outside
the peaks then possibly, but in the 50's 60's 70' and into the 80's
trains in mid morning would be fairly empty.

Indeed.


* not necessarily the national government, could be whatever was
governing London.
in that case could the Met have shrunk back further than Amersham.

That may yet happen. It is not hard to see a future were the Met Line
runs to Watford and Chiltern take over the service to Amersham and
Chesham.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:23:11 +0000, BevanPrice
wrote:

On 29/12/2015 11:15, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:05:52 GMT, d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:25:15 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I notice that "Nine Elms" roundels have gone up all over the hoarding
surrounding the former Sainsburys opposite Wilcox Road.

Boris has also ceremonially started a conveyor belt from the Battersea
station site to the Thames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjSnzw38iI

Maybe they should have just built a two way conveyor from Battersea to
Vauxhall and then we wouldn't need the railway ;-)

I wonder if when that extension is built and the line is operationally split
in 2 whether one half of the line will be given a new name or whether it'll
still all be known as the northern line?

Logically two independent lines should have two names. Independent
from a customer facing standpoint that is. It would be no surprise if
they still exchanged empty stock movements.

If the bits that were the "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead
Railway" remain together, the "Hampstead Line" has a good ring to it.

Or, how about something royal? "The Queen Elizabeth Line", "The
Charles, Prince of Wales Line", or "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Line". I suspect in every day speech these would become the QE2,
Charlie, or Duchess Lines respectively. :-)

TfL could celebrate a great politician: "The Cromwell Line", "The
Winston Spencer Churchill Line", or, especially the part that includes
the Barnett Branch "The Baroness Thatcher Line".


That last one would probably make half the passengers want to puke.......

You are believing your own leftist propaganda. Allow me to paint a
more realistic pictu
More than half of the potential users of the route just would not
care. Sad, but welcome to the modern apathetic world.

A healthy number would be happy to see the Iron Lady so honored.

A boisterous left wing minority would make a lot of obscene fuss. They
would use the methods at their disposal, vandalism, graffiti et al.
This says more about them than the great lady.

Might be better & simpler to rename everything - Line 1, Line 2, Line 3 etc.

To what advantage. There is real history behind the naming of
London's transit lines.

On 2016\01\01 09:50, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:23:11 +0000, BevanPrice
wrote:

On 29/12/2015 11:15, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:05:52 GMT, d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:25:15 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I notice that "Nine Elms" roundels have gone up all over the hoarding
surrounding the former Sainsburys opposite Wilcox Road.

Boris has also ceremonially started a conveyor belt from the Battersea
station site to the Thames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjSnzw38iI

Maybe they should have just built a two way conveyor from Battersea to
Vauxhall and then we wouldn't need the railway ;-)

I wonder if when that extension is built and the line is operationally split
in 2 whether one half of the line will be given a new name or whether it'll
still all be known as the northern line?

Logically two independent lines should have two names. Independent
from a customer facing standpoint that is. It would be no surprise if
they still exchanged empty stock movements.

If the bits that were the "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead
Railway" remain together, the "Hampstead Line" has a good ring to it.

Or, how about something royal? "The Queen Elizabeth Line", "The
Charles, Prince of Wales Line", or "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Line". I suspect in every day speech these would become the QE2,
Charlie, or Duchess Lines respectively. :-)

TfL could celebrate a great politician: "The Cromwell Line", "The
Winston Spencer Churchill Line", or, especially the part that includes
the Barnett Branch "The Baroness Thatcher Line".


That last one would probably make half the passengers want to puke.......

You are believing your own leftist propaganda. Allow me to paint a
more realistic pictu
More than half of the potential users of the route just would not
care. Sad, but welcome to the modern apathetic world.

A healthy number would be happy to see the Iron Lady so honored.

A boisterous left wing minority would make a lot of obscene fuss. They
would use the methods at their disposal, vandalism, graffiti et al.
This says more about them than the great lady.

LU would be stupid to use a name which would obviously attract graffiti.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\01 09:50, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:23:11 +0000, BevanPrice
wrote:

On 29/12/2015 11:15, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:05:52 GMT, d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:25:15 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I notice that "Nine Elms" roundels have gone up all over the hoarding
surrounding the former Sainsburys opposite Wilcox Road.

Boris has also ceremonially started a conveyor belt from the Battersea
station site to the Thames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjSnzw38iI

Maybe they should have just built a two way conveyor from Battersea to
Vauxhall and then we wouldn't need the railway ;-)

I wonder if when that extension is built and the line is operationally split
in 2 whether one half of the line will be given a new name or whether it'll
still all be known as the northern line?

Logically two independent lines should have two names. Independent
from a customer facing standpoint that is. It would be no surprise if
they still exchanged empty stock movements.

If the bits that were the "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead
Railway" remain together, the "Hampstead Line" has a good ring to it.

Or, how about something royal? "The Queen Elizabeth Line", "The
Charles, Prince of Wales Line", or "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Line". I suspect in every day speech these would become the QE2,
Charlie, or Duchess Lines respectively. :-)

TfL could celebrate a great politician: "The Cromwell Line", "The
Winston Spencer Churchill Line", or, especially the part that includes
the Barnett Branch "The Baroness Thatcher Line".


That last one would probably make half the passengers want to puke.......

You are believing your own leftist propaganda. Allow me to paint a
more realistic pictu
More than half of the potential users of the route just would not
care. Sad, but welcome to the modern apathetic world.

A healthy number would be happy to see the Iron Lady so honored.

A boisterous left wing minority would make a lot of obscene fuss. They
would use the methods at their disposal, vandalism, graffiti et al.
This says more about them than the great lady.

LU would be stupid to use a name which would obviously attract graffiti.

Exactly. Better never to name lines after politicians, or better still,
people at all. I'd no more want a Thatcher line than a Livingstone line
(ignoring his extremist politics for a moment, the latter probably did more
to help LU than most politicians).

And apart from the Victoria line, which is really named after Victoria
station, rather than the queen herself, that's long been the tradition. Far
better to have anodyne, vaguely geographic names.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:20:02 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson
wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:14:06 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:01:26 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\29 11:15, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:05:52 GMT, d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:25:15 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I notice that "Nine Elms" roundels have gone up all over the hoarding
surrounding the former Sainsburys opposite Wilcox Road.

Boris has also ceremonially started a conveyor belt from the Battersea
station site to the Thames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjSnzw38iI

Maybe they should have just built a two way conveyor from Battersea to
Vauxhall and then we wouldn't need the railway ;-)

I wonder if when that extension is built and the line is operationally split
in 2 whether one half of the line will be given a new name or whether it'll
still all be known as the northern line?

Logically two independent lines should have two names. Independent
from a customer facing standpoint that is. It would be no surprise if
they still exchanged empty stock movements.

If the bits that were the "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead
Railway" remain together, the "Hampstead Line" has a good ring to it.

Sounds too similar to the Hammersmith line. While I'm here, I wish
they'd rename the H&C the Hammercity Line. Or anything but H&C, really.

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there isn't
enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more Circle
line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be long enough
for S8 trains.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to extend some platforms?

But this is the wit of TfL we discuss.

In point of fact only the busiest stations would need there platforms
lengthened one car length. Given that many of these stations are
joint TfL NR/C2C one wonders how short these platforms are.

Less busy stations could be handled with SDO.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:20:02 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson
wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:14:06 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:01:26 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\29 11:15, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:05:52 GMT, d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:25:15 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I notice that "Nine Elms" roundels have gone up all over the hoarding
surrounding the former Sainsburys opposite Wilcox Road.

Boris has also ceremonially started a conveyor belt from the Battersea
station site to the Thames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcjSnzw38iI

Maybe they should have just built a two way conveyor from Battersea to
Vauxhall and then we wouldn't need the railway ;-)

I wonder if when that extension is built and the line is operationally split
in 2 whether one half of the line will be given a new name or whether it'll
still all be known as the northern line?

Logically two independent lines should have two names. Independent
from a customer facing standpoint that is. It would be no surprise if
they still exchanged empty stock movements.

If the bits that were the "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead
Railway" remain together, the "Hampstead Line" has a good ring to it.

Sounds too similar to the Hammersmith line. While I'm here, I wish
they'd rename the H&C the Hammercity Line. Or anything but H&C, really.

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there isn't
enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more Circle
line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be long enough
for S8 trains.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to extend some platforms?

But this is the wit of TfL we discuss.

In point of fact only the busiest stations would need there platforms
lengthened one car length. Given that many of these stations are
joint TfL NR/C2C one wonders how short these platforms are.

Less busy stations could be handled with SDO.

Instead of attacking TfL all the time, perhaps you'd care to explain the
benefits of your barking idea of sending S8 trains to Barking?

And while SDO is just about OK for dealing with the last one or two sets of
doors off the platforms at quiet stations, the idea of having whole
carriages not on the platform on a busy metro packed with many foreign
visitors is ludicrous when those stations are already served by trains
designed for them.

Also, did you know that there isn't some magic pool of redundant S8 trains
waiting to be deployed on lines with short platforms? There are, however,
S7 trains designed for them.

We know you're personally familiar with the concept of bankruptcy, and
perhaps with these pointless, profligate ideas, we can see why.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:26:22 +0000, Martin Coffee
wrote:

On 31/12/15 18:20, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:14:06 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there isn't
enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more Circle
line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be long enough
for S8 trains.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to extend some platforms?

Haven't they built the new trains with selective door opening? Surely
they've haven't made that mistake again?

One hopes not. Having lengthened the busiest stations, SDO could
handle this issue at the less busy. This could be done in one of two
ways:

1. The TfL Northern Line model were the front most and rearmost doors
remain closed. Passengers in those cars have to move thru to an
available pair of doors. Or,

2. The SWT were an announcement makes it clear that passengers wishing
to exit at the next station must be in the front seven cars. The
doors of the rear car will not open.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:26:22 +0000, Martin Coffee
wrote:

On 31/12/15 18:20, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:14:06 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:11:04 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Now that the Circle is a Tea Cup, the Hammersmith and City is no
longer needed. Why not replace it with a Metropolitan service from
Uxbridge to Barking?

Because they wanted the extra services to Hammersmith, but there isn't
enough capacity on the southern side of the Circle for more Circle
line trains. Also, the H&C stations to Barking may not be long enough
for S8 trains.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to extend some platforms?

Haven't they built the new trains with selective door opening? Surely
they've haven't made that mistake again?

One hopes not.

You don't have to hope. Why don't you simply travel on the trains in
question and see what they already do?

Having lengthened the busiest stations, SDO could
handle this issue at the less busy. This could be done in one of two
ways:

1. The TfL Northern Line model were the front most and rearmost doors
remain closed. Passengers in those cars have to move thru to an
available pair of doors.

It would appear that you've not actually travelled on the S7 trains that
already do this?

Or,

2. The SWT were an announcement makes it clear that passengers wishing
to exit at the next station must be in the front seven cars. The
doors of the rear car will not open.

Apart from you, how many foreigners with little English travel on SWT
trains?