In article
,
(Adrian) wrote:

On Apr 13, 6:27*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size
tube to link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me,
i have to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and
is still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing
something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do
Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already
do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link
somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and
Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run
Metroland
trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street
platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between
Baker St and Finchley Road.

Aha. Now i'm starting to get my head round this. The situation at the

time was four Met tracks north of Finchley Road, one fast pair
heading to Metroland, and a slow pair heading to Stanmore, with a
single pair south of there into Baker Street, is that right? The
tube that Adrian mentioned would have run all the way from Finchley
Road [1] to Edgware Road, allowing the Metroland trains to run to
Edgware Road and then Aldgate (or wherever), leaving the Stanmore
trains with exclusive the existing line to Baker Street. The new
tube would presumably have been non-stop, whereas the Baker Street
line then had the three now-closed stations at Swiss Cottage,
Marlborough Road and Lords on it, so it made sense to use that route
for the slows.

Broadly speaking: Yes. I read an account of this many years ago. I
do not remember the title of the book. I thought the intention was to
run Stanmore trains to High St Kensington and on thru Gloucester Rd.
Colin Rosenstiel thinks otherwise, and I cannot argue with him.

My source is "Steam to Silver" by J Graeme Bruce, first edition, 1970,
pages 68 and 69. The relevant text reads:

"The Metropolitan realised that some relief to the bottleneck between
Finchley Road and Baker Street was required, especially as these two
tracks carried the country service of the railway as well as catering for
a local service calling at Swiss Cottage, Marlborough Road, and St.
John's Wood. Plans were prepared for a connection from a point near
Kilburn & Brondesbury to Edgware Road, in a 15 ft. 6 in. tube, so that a
junction to the Circle Line would be made in the same direction as that
arranged at Baker Street.

In anticipation of this connection Edgware Road station was rebuilt in
1926 with four platforms as existing today, utilizing the space which had
been vacated by moving the old Metropolitan Railway engine sheds to
Neasden. The- train destination indicators placed on the' new platforms
for many years contained descriptions such as 'Aylesbury Line' which were
never required, because' the connection to Edgware Road was never built.
The congestion in the bottleneck, however, grew so that the number of
stopping trains between Finchley Road and Baker Street was severely
limited and subsequently stops were not, in fact, made during the peak
periods.

Relief came under the 1935/40 New Works Programme by extending the
Bakerloo tube to Finchley Road and re-arranging the tracks so that the
Metropolitan fast lines were on the outside with the Bakerloo in the
middle. The Bakerloo then took over the operation of the Stanmore branch,
including the burrowing junction built north of Wembley Park which
eliminated the problems created at this station by the previous
expansion."

What i don't get is where the Stanmore trains would have gone after
Baker Street. There can't have been capacity on the Circle line for
both lots of trains, so either they would have terminated at Baker
Street, or connection to the Bakerloo was part of the plan. I
suppose that the Metropolitan had a mindset of being a normal
railway, with lines running into a terminus on the edge of central
London, with the fact that some trains went on into town being
merely a bonus - Baker Street was London Bridge to Aldgate's
Charing Cross. That would mean they were quite happy for all those
Stanmore trains to terminate at Baker Street.

See my remarks above. The Met. managed to avoid the 1923 grouping by
claiming to be part of London's mass transit system. They did try to
avoid becoming part of the LTPB by claiming to be a main line
railway. That time they failed. :-) The Met. separated their
property business and continued to exist as a property company for
many years.

[1] In fact, Kilburn - just found this in CULG.

The Met still uses Baker St as a terminus for a lot of its services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes
Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding
two more tracks on that section is a non-starter.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks,
but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between
the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly
expensive and inconvenient.

You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the
Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north
side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like
rerouting the line through tubes under the station.

tom

[1] Not sure what the proper name for these is - platforms outside the
tracks, as opposed to island platforms which are between them.

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa

On Apr 15, 2:36*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding
two more tracks on that section is a non-starter.

West Hampstead needs to be reconstructed as convenient rail
interchange. Most services passing thru the complex should stop,
inter city services excepted.

On Apr 15, 6:23*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks,
but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between
the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly
expensive and inconvenient.

You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the
Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north
side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like
rerouting the line through tubes under the station.

If this was a motorway expansion, you can be sure that a few houses
and businesses would be allowed to stand in the way.

Side platforms are not appropriate for this location. The Met. and
Jubilee should have two island platforms. The GC pair could also use
an island platform. All platforms should be linked by underground
tunnel and escalators to the North London line and Thameslink.


Adrian

On Apr 14, 5:14*pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,


(Adrian) wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:27*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size
tube to link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me,
i have to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and
is still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing
something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do
Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already
do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link
somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and
Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run
Metroland
trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street
platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between
Baker St and Finchley Road.

Aha. Now i'm starting to get my head round this. The situation at the
time was four Met tracks north of Finchley Road, one fast pair
heading to Metroland, and a slow pair heading to Stanmore, with a
single pair south of there into Baker Street, is that right? The
tube that Adrian mentioned would have run all the way from Finchley
Road [1] to Edgware Road, allowing the Metroland trains to run to
Edgware Road and then Aldgate (or wherever), leaving the Stanmore
trains with exclusive the existing line to Baker Street. The new
tube would presumably have been non-stop, whereas the Baker Street
line then had the three now-closed stations at Swiss Cottage,
Marlborough Road and Lords on it, so it made sense to use that route
for the slows.

Broadly speaking: Yes. *I read an account of this many years ago. *I
do not remember the title of the book. *I thought the intention was to
run Stanmore trains to High St Kensington and on thru Gloucester Rd.
Colin Rosenstiel thinks otherwise, and I cannot argue with him.

My source is "Steam to Silver" by J Graeme Bruce, first edition, 1970,
pages 68 and 69. The relevant text reads:

"The Metropolitan realised that some relief to the bottleneck between
Finchley Road and Baker Street was required, especially as these two
tracks carried the country service of the railway as well as catering for
a local service calling at Swiss Cottage, Marlborough Road, and St.
John's Wood. Plans were prepared for a connection from a point near
Kilburn & Brondesbury to Edgware Road, in a 15 ft. 6 in. tube, so that a
junction to the Circle Line would be made in the same direction as that
arranged at Baker Street.

In anticipation of this connection Edgware Road station was rebuilt in
1926 with four platforms as existing today, utilizing the space which had
been vacated by moving the old Metropolitan Railway engine sheds to
Neasden. The- train destination indicators placed on the' new platforms
for many years contained descriptions such as 'Aylesbury Line' which were
never required, because' the connection to Edgware Road was never built.
The congestion in the bottleneck, however, grew so that the number of
stopping trains between Finchley Road and Baker Street was severely
limited and subsequently stops were not, in fact, made during the peak
periods.

Relief came under the 1935/40 New Works Programme by extending the
Bakerloo tube to Finchley Road and re-arranging the tracks so that the
Metropolitan fast lines were on the outside with the Bakerloo in the
middle. The Bakerloo then took over the operation of the Stanmore branch,
including the burrowing junction built north of Wembley Park which
eliminated the problems created at this station by the previous
expansion."


Thank you for your clear, concise and helpful explanation.

Adrian

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met
tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of
islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs?

No. Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
--\ ######## /-------------------
\--------/ /--------\
---------------/ ######## \------
---------------------------------

Doing this would of course be hopelessly expensive and inconvenient.

As would that.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met
tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of
islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs?

No.

Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform,
which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed?

Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
--\ ######## /-------------------
\--------/ /--------\
---------------/ ######## \------
---------------------------------

Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the
Chiltern lines!

Any reason you've drawn it upside-down?

tom

--
There is no latest trend.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met
tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of
islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs?

No.

Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform,
which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed?

Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
--\ ######## /-------------------
\--------/ /--------\
---------------/ ######## \------
---------------------------------

Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the
Chiltern lines!

Any reason you've drawn it upside-down?

There is possibly more room available at West Hampstead than is
apparent at first sight. The GC lines used to have platforms, the
odd-looking doorway at the back of one of the shops is the access from
what was the station building so that side might not need a lot
alteration of premises in Broadhurst Gardens to put in a new platform
(but not necessarily so for the gap between the Up GC and the Down
Met). On the other side, if nothing new has been built in the last few
years then there is room for expansion to the north without knocking
down too much. As for the station building it is IIRC one of a number
built to a similar design so not desperately in need of preservation
but past modernisation elsewhere seems to have been achieved without
too much alteration to the outward appearance anyway. If the road
bridge is still as inadequate WRT to weight-carrying as it was a few
years ago then this would also be an opportunity/excuse to replace it
and increase the available width of the railway formation below.

On Apr 15, 2:42*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0100, Tom Anderson


wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met
tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of
islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs?

No.

Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform,
which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed?

Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

* *---------------------------------
* *---------------------------------
* *---------------------------------
* *--\ ######## /-------------------
* * * *\--------/ * /--------\
* *---------------/ ######## \------
* *---------------------------------

Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the
Chiltern lines!


There is possibly more room available at West Hampstead than is
apparent at first sight.

That is good to know!

The GC lines used to have platforms, the
odd-looking doorway at the back of one of the shops is the access from
what was the station building so that side might not need a lot
alteration of premises in Broadhurst Gardens to put in a new platform
(but not necessarily so for the gap between the Up GC and the Down
Met).

Do you know the opening and closure dates for the GC platforms at West
Hampstead? I ask, because IIRC part of the GC's agreement with the
Met. was to have no stations south of Harrow.

On the other side, if nothing new has been built in the last few
years then there is room for expansion to the north without knocking
down too much. As for the station building it is IIRC one of a number
built to a similar design so not desperately in need of preservation
but past modernisation elsewhere seems to have been achieved without
too much alteration to the outward appearance anyway. If the road
bridge is still as inadequate WRT to weight-carrying as it was a few
years ago then this would also be an opportunity/excuse to replace it
and increase the available width of the railway formation below.

Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West
Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road?

S.