On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:25:35 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\31 12:42, wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

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

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

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.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.


I don't know what point you're making. What's the difference between a
metro and a suburban railway? Which is better?

Its horses for courses. Metro is very high frequency service
interval, basic seating, and more doors maybe three pairs per car.

Suburban trains maybe less frequent, accommodate less standees, and
have more passenger amenities. Cars may only have two pairs of doors.

But, the variations are infinite. They can certainly share tracks.
The Metropolitan ran an intense service on the Circle Line and a
Suburban service to Aylesbury. The Met. Also had rural branches.
Hybrid trains are also possible. Search for "North Shore Line" and
Electroliner. Enjoy!

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:25:35 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\31 12:42, wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:56:37 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

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

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

IIRC the Southern Railway aimed for 20 minute services to its suburban
stations. It was the Southern Region that reduced them to thirty
minutes.

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.

In conjunction with the LNER many of these services could have
continued. Certainly over time it would have evolved into a modern
suburban railway.

My point precisely. Not a metro that it now is.


I don't know what point you're making. What's the difference between a
metro and a suburban railway? Which is better?

Corrected version.

Its horses for courses. Metro is very high frequency service
interval, basic seating, and more doors maybe three pairs per car.

Suburban trains maybe less frequent, accommodate less standees, and
have more passenger amenities. Cars may only have two pairs of doors.

But, the variations are infinite. They can certainly share tracks.
The Metropolitan ran an intense service on the Circle Line and a
Suburban service to Aylesbury. The Met. Also had rural branches.
Hybrid trains are also possible. Search for "North Shore Line" and
Electroliner. Enjoy!

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

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

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?


Ah, but you could have paid extra to get antimacassars on your seats!

tim..... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2015\12\28 22:51, Recliner wrote:
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?

The extension is certainly being built and will open in 2020, but
the line won't be split into two for some years (if at all). The
split requires the rebuilding of Camden Town station.


So Morden will just lose, what, a third of its peak service?

Morden terminus can't cope with the peak service anyway

some have to be turned at Tooting

No they don't (unless there is disruption). It is not practical to have
regular Tooting reversers in the peak due to the time it takes to empty
out the train before heading into the siding.

Peter Smyth

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

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

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

Ah, but you could have paid extra to get antimacassars on your seats!

The Met even had a pair oc Pullmans,

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

One has to wonder where the Metropolitan Line would be today sans the
destructive forces of the LTPB, LT, LRT, and TfL.

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

Like the Southern, with half-hourly services to every one of varied
destinations from Baker Street?

Ah, but you could have paid extra to get antimacassars on your seats!

The Met even had a pair oc Pullmans,

That was then, and this is now.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:59:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Yes we have been through this before and I never saw a convincing argument
against it. The large amount of relative movement is not an issue for
mainline stock so I see no reason why it would be for tube stock which is
just 9 inches narrower. As for the open gangway being too narrow - it would
be the same width and height as the current door areas so your logic is
faulty.

Rubbish. The current doorways aren't aligned except when the trains are
running on straight and level track

Sorry? No idea wtf you're talking about there.


Unless you can come up with a sensible reason against it then perhaps don't
comment on it at all.

That's excellent advice for you, as would getting a better memory. Note
that tube lines have tighter curves than main lines. You only seem to

Yes, the sub surface lines do have tight curves which would obviously mean
no walk through trains on there. Oh , wait...

Oddly enough the Paris metro which has equally tight curves also manages it
without using articulated stock. And the carriages are just as narrow as
a deep level tube train.

travel on the Victoria line, but perhaps you should live dangerously and
take a ride on the Piccadilly and Central lines one day.

FYI I commute on the piccadilly every day. One is allowed to use more than
1 line you know.

But as you obviously think you know so much more about this topic than
qualified engineers, professional train designers and TfL, why don't you

No, I've simply seen what the engineers have done elsewhere.

get a pay rise from being a contract programmer by selling your great
expertise to them?

I actually worked on backend systems for some of the very first travelcard
ticketing systems for newagents back in the mid 90s when newsagents could
sell you a paper ticket.

--
Spud

On 2015\12\29 12:43, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 12:39, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\29 11:18, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 03:00:52 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\12\28 22:51, Recliner wrote:
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?

The extension is certainly being built and will open in 2020, but
the line
won't be split into two for some years (if at all). The split
requires the
rebuilding of Camden Town station.


So Morden will just lose, what, a third of its peak service?

One presumes the trains that currently terminate at Kennington will
proceed onto the new branch.

slaps forehead composes himself I knew that. I was just testing.

Actually, the map on the TfL site says otherwise.
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-informatio...line-extension


But what you're saying makes more sense than their map.

"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."

http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_ht...ATT ERSEA.pdf


Judging by
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/nle-twa-de...ctions-a14.pdf
,the part of the loop between the exit for Battersea and the entrance
from Battersea will only be long enough for one train. I suppose that's
enough!

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.......

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

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.......

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

Yes, that would be my preference. But if not, the traditional method of
naming Tube lines based on the original end points makes sense. We
certainly don't want them named after politicians, or royals.