https://www.mylondon.news/news/news-opinion/13-reasons-you-never-see-17700734
I’m sorry but this has to be the most astonishing piece of lazy journalism i’ve ever seen. The author seem so to have no clue about the history of the Metropolotan Line and how it go to to its current state. To put it straight here’s my response on the 13 points.
1. But it provides a direct link between the northwestern suburbs and the city, which the Circle, H&C and Chiltern Railways don’t offer.
2. Not everywhere on the Metropolitan Line is also served by NR, therefore it is the quickest option.
3. But you can get on a Circle or H&C to Baker Street and change onto a Met train there. Probably much quicker than waiting for a direct Met train.
4. The line is so long, it makes sense to have varied service patterns, otherwise it would take forever to reach the end of the line.
5. It used to extend east of Aldgate, with branches to Barking and New Cross, but both are now occupied by other lines which are at capacity so it would make little sense to do so now
6. Just because a line is branded London Underground doesn’t mean it is required to stay inside the M25.
7. Argh! You say how annoying it is to have three lines serving the same platforms in point 3, yet feel the same way for the Met to have dedicated platforms at another?
8. What’s that got to do with train travel?
9. The point of the Met is to serve stations inbetween that NR don’t serve, and no it is not part of the Overground
10. Six out of eleven lines don’t have night service as they obviously don’t have the demand, the Met included unsurprisingly as it doesn’t go to the touristy and cultural parts of town.
11. Again, what’s that got to do with train travel?
12. You’ve obviously never heard of Epping.
13. Not if your destination is anywhere north of Baker Street?
13 reasons why why you will never see me travel on the London Underground’s Metropolitan line'
I would rather miss a party than set foot on that line
All of the LondonUnderground's lines have their pros and cons.
The Central line was voted the most stressful line but it takes you to so many key places, from Bank and Liverpool Street to Oxford Circus and Notting Hill.
The Victoria Line may be hot and sweaty but it's fast and regular too.
But when it comes to the Metropolitan Line, it's difficult to think of unique points about it that are also positive.
In fact, there are a lot of annoying aspects of the line that mean you'd never ever see me on it.
1. It doesn't go anywhere useful
I get that this is just my opinion. If you live along the line, it's probably quite useful to you.
But if you look at the map for a second, pretty much all the stations it stops at in Central London follow exactly the same route as the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines anyway so it's not really needed from that perspective.
Beyond that it branches out a bit but so many of its stations are either on other London Underground lines or have their own National Rail lines that are likely to be much quicker.
There's just so many possibilities that would mean you could avoid the Met line.
2. There's such huge gaps between the stations
The Met line has the longest distance between London Underground stations on the whole network - 3.89 miles.
Surely it's quicker to get a normal National Rail train?
3. The service seems irregular and confusing
At most Met line stations, the line shares platforms with the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines.
This means, unlike with many lines, you can't just get on the next train.
That would be fine but in my experience there's always tons of Circle and Hammersmith and City trains before a Metropolitan one comes.
4. There's fast and stopping trains
Again proving it just has to be different to everywhere else, the Met line runs three types of services.
Fast, semi-fast and all stations, the latter of which is obviously the slowest.
It means different services will stop in different places.
Combine that with the irregular service and you could be waiting absolutely ages to get a train that takes you to where you need to be.
5. Why does one end terminate in Zone 1 and one in Zone 9?
I just don't get why the line suddenly ends in Aldgate.
If it's going to go all the way to Amersham one end, why not make itself useful and extend at least a little further from Aldgate.
6. It's a London Underground line but goes into Buckinghamshire
So it's not the London Underground really, is it?
7. If you have to get on it at Baker Street you will get confused
In most other stations, the Met line shares platforms with the Circle and Hammersmith and City Lines.
But Baker Street likes to be different so has different platforms for everything all dotted around the station complex.
Please leave yourself enough time to get lost if you do have to go there.
8. One of its stations, Aldgate, is built on top of loads of bodies of people who died in the plague
Very creepy and grim.
9. If you do decide to go from one of the further out stations, there's probably a much quicker route on an Overground train
The National Rail train from Amersham to London Marylebone takes around 39 minutes.
If you do a very similar route, taking the London Underground Met line from Amersham to Baker Street, it takes about 60 minutes.
10. The Met line isn't on the Night Tube
What is the point of being a London Underground line if you're not on the Night Tube by now?
All those people who just want to live outside the throng of busy London but still go on occasional nights out in the city have had their dreams crushed unless they want to afford an expensive taxi home or leave by 11pm.
11. Farringdon, another station on the line, is supposedly haunted
Legend has it that if you travel through Farringdon on the Met line you can sometimes hear the screaming of Anne Naylor, who was an apprentice in hat making who was murdered by her employer in 1758.
Apparently her body was dumped where the station was then built.
It's the last thing you want to think about on your grim morning commute.
12. Only 5 stations sit outside the M25 on the whole London Underground network and three of those are on the Met line
It just has to be different, doesn't it?
13. You could just use the Circle or Hammersmith and City line
Save yourself the pain and use alternative lines whenever you can.
I’m sorry but this has to be the most astonishing piece of lazy journalism i’ve ever seen. The author seem so to have no clue about the history of the Metropolotan Line and how it go to to its current state. To put it straight here’s my response on the 13 points.
1. But it provides a direct link between the northwestern suburbs and the city, which the Circle, H&C and Chiltern Railways don’t offer.
2. Not everywhere on the Metropolitan Line is also served by NR, therefore it is the quickest option.
3. But you can get on a Circle or H&C to Baker Street and change onto a Met train there. Probably much quicker than waiting for a direct Met train.
4. The line is so long, it makes sense to have varied service patterns, otherwise it would take forever to reach the end of the line.
5. It used to extend east of Aldgate, with branches to Barking and New Cross, but both are now occupied by other lines which are at capacity so it would make little sense to do so now
6. Just because a line is branded London Underground doesn’t mean it is required to stay inside the M25.
7. Argh! You say how annoying it is to have three lines serving the same platforms in point 3, yet feel the same way for the Met to have dedicated platforms at another?
8. What’s that got to do with train travel?
9. The point of the Met is to serve stations inbetween that NR don’t serve, and no it is not part of the Overground
10. Six out of eleven lines don’t have night service as they obviously don’t have the demand, the Met included unsurprisingly as it doesn’t go to the touristy and cultural parts of town.
11. Again, what’s that got to do with train travel?
12. You’ve obviously never heard of Epping.
13. Not if your destination is anywhere north of Baker Street?
Last edited: