Colin Rosenstiel wrote

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as they
existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting in
residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police. There was
no attempt to align boundaries until much later.

--
Mike D

In article , (Michael R N
Dolbear) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote

Actually, the Metropolitan Police District did correspond to a set of
pre-1965 local authorities, but they got reorganised in 1965 (within
Greater London) and 1974 (elsewhere).

I think they retreated from places like Esher (Surrey) much more
recently than that.

and Epsom as well

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it seems

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying was that the
Metropolitan Police District comprised whole local authority areas as
they existed at the time the boundaries were defined.

Which it didn't. For example both before and after 1965 the Metropolitan
Police District policed a large chunk of the county of Surrey resulting
in residents paying a Police rate to either the Met or Surrey Police.
There was no attempt to align boundaries until much later.

It was only done when the Mayor was created as Police Commissar for London.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 12/25/2016 1:18 AM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:14:28 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 8:40 PM, Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:11:10 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:25:43 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.

It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.

There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.

The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.

IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.

Why do you say that?

It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.

Actually, as I'm sure you're very well aware, Watford is in Herts, well
outside London and the zonal area. And the Bakerloo line has never gone to
Docklands. Furthermore, people from Watford who want to travel to central
London are far more likely to take a fast LM train, not an excruciatingly
slow LU or LO train.

Outside, but not well outside. It has a border with the London Borough
of Harrow. It might make sense to put it in the zonal area. Bushey
used to be in the Met Police area.

Until recent times there was no connection (apart from its innermost
boundary with the capital city) between the Metropolitan Police
District and local authority areas. It was based on rough proximity to
Charing Cross to deal with matters within the metropolis.

Thanks for the update.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:14:04 PM UTC, Ian Batten wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 13:18:04 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 5:24 PM, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:11:10 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:25:43 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.

It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.

There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.

The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.

IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.

Why do you say that?

It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.

In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.

It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.

OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains. One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.

Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.

You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:23:53 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:14:04 PM UTC, Ian Batten wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 13:18:04 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:11:46 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/23/2016 5:24 PM, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:11:10 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:25:43 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

I never really got the rationalle behind cutting the bakerloo back to
harrow.

It was actually cut back to Queen's Park and only extended north of there
when Stonebridge Park Depot was built.

There's obviously a commuter demand for it (hence LO) and it wasn't
even the longest tube line when it did run there so its not as if it
was going miles.

The Bakerloo only had a limited peak hour service (to access Croxley
Green Depot) long before even that was withdrawn.

IMHO it makes more sense to run the Bakerloo to Watford than the
Overground.

Why do you say that?

It is very much within the London conurbation, and ones suspects most
users would prefer a direct rapid transit train to the West End and
Docklands than a suburban train to a terminus. Just my USD0.02.

In the 50s it did run there, and there were still a few in the 60s.

It has never run to Docklands. And someone wanting to get to the West
End would get there a lot quicker if they took a main line train to
Euston, then changed to a bus or Tube train.

OK Ian, so I think you are conflating two streams of thought here.
"Smooth Operator" Nigel is referring to the LO route to Watford
Junction. Unfortunately, he loses the plot sometimes. there are 16
stations south of Watford junction, up to, and including Queens Park.
None of them are served by mainline trains. Although Harrow &
Wealdstone, and, Wembley Central do have suburban trains.

That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.

One would
venture to suggest that the further south one starts on this route,
the more attractive is a metro service. Conversely, the less
attractive one would find navigating the chaos at Euston.

Vanity project with unclear objectives, descoped and cost-reduced to
just about get it under the bar, since when it's virtually doubled in cost.
Of course it's going to be looked at sceptically. If Herts can't fund it, TfL
have better things to spend a third of a billion quid on.

You OTOH are referring to the County of Hertford's desire to see
Metropolitan Line services run into Watford Junction station. Opinions
differ. I do not share yours. I think having a central interchange
at Watford will be a very good thing.

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament. The LPTB worked
perfectly well.

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

On 2016\12\28 22:53, Recliner wrote:

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.

On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/28/2016 9:46 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
That's "mainline" or are Birmingham and Northampton now suburbs of
London ? You also missed out Bushey.

The suburban line from Euston went to Watford from its inception.
Nobody at the time could have thought of Watford as either in London or
a suburb, indeed we did not think it was at the time I left in 1970. It
just made sense from a transport point of view.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman