Could the metropolitan line go to a TOC?

[Bucephalus]

When I think about the current London Overground (East London Line) I think about how it might have remained part of the Underground had the extension been built sooner. I think it would have been fantastic (for me at least) to see A Stock pull into West Croydon. As silly as it sounds, (trains are trains) it might have elevated Croydon.

Now, in the same sense that a relatively quiet tube line can be 'de-undergrounded' is there scope to 'sell off' the Metropolitan Line to a TOC?

Where would it run (Birmingham-Baker St maybe?), what rolling stock might it use, could it revive the Watford Junction extension, and most importantly could TFL make money out of ditching it?

Also, on a side note, if someone could tell me how A-Stock was moved between the Met and the East London Line I'd be intrigued to know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where would it run (Birmingham-Baker St maybe?), what rolling stock might it use, could it revive the Watford Junction extension, and most importantly could TFL make money out of ditching it?

The one I've heard suggested is to truncate it to Harrow on the Hill-Aldgate, with Chiltern running the rest. While I'm not sure that that would make sense (if anything I'd extend the Met to Aylesbury and get Chiltern off that bit to free up capacity at Marylebone) it is probably the only one that is within the realms of viability.

Also, on a side note, if someone could tell me how A-Stock was moved between the Met and the East London Line I'd be intrigued to know.

On the back of a lorry, I believe.
(corrected below, thanks @JonathanH and @Irascible )

 

[JonathanH]

On the back of a lorry, I believe.

There was a curve at Whitechapel connecting the two lines during the period when A stock operated.

St Mary's (Whitechapel Road) tube station - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

St. Mary's Curve

The connection line leading to the old East London Line is still called the St. Mary's Curve. For many years the line was only used to transfer rolling stock between the East London and Metropolitan lines. Loading gauge restrictions for the stock meant that, although the curve was double tracked, trains could only pass in one direction at any one time. When illuminated, it can easily be seen from the left-hand side of East London Line trains entering Whitechapel from the south and can still be seen from the right-hand side of District line trains entering the station from the west. Since re-opening as part of the London Overground in 2010, the former East London Line no longer shares rolling stock with the Metropolitan line. As a result, St. Mary's Curve is no longer used, but the tunnel still exists. The points at St. Mary's Curve were removed in 2009.

 

[Irascible]

Where would it run (Birmingham-Baker St maybe?), what rolling stock might it use, could it revive the Watford Junction extension, and most importantly could TFL make money out of ditching it?

Sir Edmund Watkin might approve! I suspect it'd basically be Chiltern & whatever they would currently use though given they're already dealing with mixing LT & NR systems. Been a long time since I've been to Baker St, but isn't it a bit cramped?

Also, on a side note, if someone could tell me how A-Stock was moved between the Met and the East London Line I'd be intrigued to know.

There was a link between the EL & District ( as I notice someone just inserted above ).

 

[JonathanH]

The one I've heard suggested is to truncate it to Harrow on the Hill-Aldgate, with Chiltern running the rest. While I'm not sure that that would make sense (if anything I'd extend the Met to Aylesbury and get Chiltern off that bit to free up capacity at Marylebone) it is probably the only one that is within the realms of viability.

Uxbridge and Watford to Aldgate surely would remain part of the Metropolitan Line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Uxbridge and Watford to Aldgate surely would remain part of the Metropolitan Line.

Sorry, I more meant the "main bit" and forgot Uxbridge was Met. Watford is an awkward bit, I suspect in that scenario it'd likely either close or perhaps become a shuttle. Depends how much you wanted to simplify it!

Either way it's all a bit "crayonista" as I can't see it happening, not least because de-electrification would be politically unacceptable.

 

[Bucephalus]

Thanks for answering me so quickly about st Mary's curve. I'll look out for that whenever I'm up that way.

 

[JonathanH]

Sorry, I more meant the "main bit" and forgot Uxbridge was Met. Watford is an awkward bit, I suspect in that scenario it'd likely either close or perhaps become a shuttle. Depends how much you wanted to simplify it!

Either way it's all a bit "crayonista" as I can't see it happening, not least because de-electrification would be politically unacceptable.

In a future electrification of the Chiltern lines, transferring the main line services and running Amersham / Chesham with electric units into Marylebone could be one possibility but something still needs to serve Northwood / Pinner etc. The only reason for doing this at all would be to intensify the service to Watford (or Uxbridge) and I can't see that being on anyone's agenda so I suspect it will remain the same, particularly since, to date, there have been other priorities for Marylebone's capactity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a future electrification of the Chiltern lines, transferring the main line services and running Amersham / Chesham with electric units into Marylebone could be one possibility but something still needs to serve Northwood / Pinner etc. The only reason for doing this at all would be to intensify the service to Watford (or Uxbridge) and I can't see that being on anyone's agenda so I suspect it will remain the same, particularly since, to date, there have been other priorities for Marylebone's capactity.

At risk of hacking off people in Great Missenden (nice place but not that big), another option would be EWR extends to Amersham from Aylesbury, a second hourly Aylesbury-Marylebone via HW is added, and Chiltern stops operating on the Met entirely. Can't see that happening, though.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Now, in the same sense that a relatively quiet tube line can be 'de-undergrounded' is there scope to 'sell off' the Metropolitan Line to a TOC?

Where would it run (Birmingham-Baker St maybe?), what rolling stock might it use, could it revive the Watford Junction extension, and most importantly could TFL make money out of ditching it?

The Metropolitan Line is not a "a relatively quiet tube line can be 'de-undergrounded." It is a busy and essential part of London's public transport system and there is no good reason to sell it to a TOC. TfL would not make money by getting rid of it. London Underground - in normal, non-Covid circumstances - is London's cash cow. No Mayor, not even the three worthless, self-serving narcissists we've had so far, would be silly enough to let go of it. The people of London would not stand for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Metropolitan Line is not a "a relatively quiet tube line can be 'de-undergrounded."

I think the different branches are very different in that regard, though. A number of years ago I commuted from MK to an office very near Aldgate station, and so I tended to use the Met to get there from Euston Square. There would be a constant procession of Met trains that originated from Uxbridge which were mostly full and standing - then you'd get the ex-Amersham or ex-Watford come in and you'd get a double seat if you got on at the back.

I could therefore envisage the idea of Aylesbury/Watford being run by an electrified Chiltern, but Uxbridge perhaps becoming part of the Circle Line as a "Circle and Uxbridge" / "Circle and Hammersmith" split. I don't think it's likely, though, and I still think getting the Met to Aylesbury would be better overall.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I think the different branches are very different in that regard, though. A number of years ago I commuted from MK to an office very near Aldgate station, and so I tended to use the Met to get there from Euston Square. There would be a constant procession of Met trains that originated from Uxbridge which were mostly full and standing - then you'd get the ex-Amersham or ex-Watford come in and you'd get a double seat if you got on at the back.

That's partly because so many people change to the Jubilee Line at Finchley Road and partly because so many people get out at Baker Street and Great Portland Street. When those trains from Amersham, Chesham and Uxbridge arrive at Finchley Road, they pretty full, even off peak. They pick up lots of passengers at Harrow-On-The-Hill and Wembley Park.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The Baker Street Met station is entirely separate from the H&C/Circle anyway, with it almost looking a bit like a small mainline station like Fenchurch Street.

If the Met line was to be split from London Underground then, I would:

- Truncate it at Baker Street, or “London Baker Street” as I guess it would be known.

- Run services as Chiltern Railways using third rail units that could use the 4th rail electrification, or bi modes to allow the Amershams to go to Aylesbury or use overhead lines when they eventually come. They should have toilets and 100% transverse seating unlike the S Stock. Plugs and Wi-Fi wouldn’t be a bad thing either.

London Baker Street - Watford
London Baker Street - Amersham/Aylesbury
London Baker Street - Chesham
London Baker Street - Uxbridge

(if you wanted to keep NR & LU totally separate you could stop the little used 3TPH Uxbridge Piccadilly line at Rayners Lane)

- On the Underground an extra 12tph Hammersmith - Aldgate (branded as either Circle or H&C) to maintain the current frequency between Baker St and Aldgate and give Paddington a better frequency. Would use up the redundant S8 stock (take out a carriage)

It’s already more like National Rail in how it skips all of the Jubilee line stations and skip stops on Semis/Fasts, not to mention the sparse 2tph frequencies on Amersham & Chesham, to be honest I think it’d be better as it improves the direct services to Paddington, provides a nicer service for those in the Chilterns with proper trains with toilets, and renders London Underground as a completely high-frequency, all stations operation.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Going back into history (and there is no better book than Alan A Jackson's on the Metropolitan Railway) - the "Met" was proud of it's status as a "main line railway in miniature" - it owned goods depots , horse boxes, a parcel delivery service , even ran a couple of Pullman cars (loss leaders yes - great PR though) , refreshment rooms and all the trappings of a main line operation.

The trouble is , it increasingly served by 1933 - the same markets as the remainder of the Tube and District line , one it massively helped create - suburbia.

It fought a losing battle not to become part of the LT combine and lost - (it was too small and interworked to remain independant , though it would be interesting to see if the GWR or LMS were interested - not so with the worst year of the decade -1931 - not far behind it)

I see no change at all - Crossrail 1 would have made it more Uxbridge (the busiest branch I guess - the weakest - the present Watford) , and taken away the thin bits beyond say Moor Park or Northwood.

Maybe in 30 years when the "S" stock will be reviewed there may be a chance of a reappraisal unless something dramatic happens.

 

[telstarbox]

Excellent post!

 

[MatthewRead]

They shouldn't extend the Metropolitan to Aylesbury now no one will want to sit on those uncomfortable seats for ages.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Interesting thread, The Met Line is pretty much a Suburban railway up to Baker Street, it skips inner suburban stations much like how C2C skips stations and even how some South Eastern metro trains skip New Cross & St. John’s, and of course the Chiltern to Aylesbury itself is basically a super express Met Line, since they skip both Jubilee and some Met Line stations

Its a dead feet that the Chesham/Amersham’s would be siphoned off to Chiltern into Marylebone, while the Uxbridge’s could become a London Overground service to Baker Street.

Not sure what I’d do with the Watford’s it would be overkill to send them into Marylebone with the extra Aylesbury/Amersham/Chesham service, and I think a second LO service would be too much of a duplication of the Euston-Watford LO Line, but for arguments sake, it probably would be better suited to being a LO Route into Baker Street.

Of course it’s possible that the Aylesbury/Amersham/Chesham extra Chilterns could run into Baker Street to relieve the pressure off Marylebone at peaks

Great thread

 

[etr221]

My understanding is that - at some point in the Crossrail developmant saga - it was proposed that there would be a connection from Crossrail at Paddington, onto the GC line to Harrow, thence take over the Met fast lines beyond to Rickmansworth, Chesham and Aylesbury (electrification changed to overhead); with the Met restricted to Uxbridge and Watford.

And, while Crossrail may now be out of the picture, that is perhaps my thought as how things might be divided - LU to Watford, NR to Ricky and beyond.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

My understanding is that - at some point in the Crossrail developmant saga - it was proposed that there would be a connection from Crossrail at Paddington, onto the GC line to Harrow, thence take over the Met fast lines beyond to Rickmansworth, Chesham and Aylesbury (electrification changed to overhead); with the Met restricted to Uxbridge and Watford.

And, while Crossrail may now be out of the picture, that is perhaps my thought as how things might be divided - LU to Watford, NR to Ricky and beyond.

The original Crossrail had a route through Old Oak Common , a new connection onto the Dudden Hill line and a new chord at Neasden onto the Chiltern lines towards Harrow and then taking over the Met fast lines (25kv) to Amersham , Chesham and Aylesbury. Some quite tricky engineering to weave through OOC towards the freight line and down onto Neasden. As detailed work was carried out, the narrowness of the "Met" corridor became obvious to give seperation of the LU tracks and the Crossrail lines , let alone the condition of the post war 4 tracking through places like Northwood - Moor Park (some of it seemed to be on wartime rubble !) , plus a new station on the straight south of Rickmansworth and the inevitable environmental grief over (shock horror) - OLE to Chesham !.

A very expensive piece of railway , and as said before , maybe too many 8 car trains north of Amersham. Interesting work though.

The residual Met service to Uxbridge and Watford (Met) was never worked out in great detail , there were then hopes of the Watford Junction plan for the Met which would have give it a bit more of a "raison d'etre" - and just for fun we looked at a service from Amersham to Watford Jct via the Ricky curve. All academic now.

 

[WideRanger]

It is sometimes suggested that the Jubilee Line could take over stopping trains to Harrow on the Hill. Presumably, for that to happen, more trains would be needed and/or reduction in the number of trains up to Stanmore.

If that were to happen, and all Metropolitan Line trains went stopped only at Wembley Park and Finchley Road between Harrow on the Hill and Baker Street, would that free up enough stock to enable the Metropolitan Line Trains to take over the Chiltern Branch to Aylesbury? I'm assuming not (and ignores the lack of electrified rail), but how insufficient would it be?

 

[Roast Veg]

If you wanted to hand the Met over to Chiltern wholesale you'd have a nightmare of a job at Neasden depot.

 

[Mojo]

Cripes, I hope not. Service can already be quite bad as it is without Network Rail and a Toc running the service...

Also doesn't reflect reality in that the Uxbridge service is really the "main" Met service as it carries more passengers than the services via Moor Park.

It is sometimes suggested that the Jubilee Line could take over stopping trains to Harrow on the Hill. Presumably, for that to happen, more trains would be needed and/or reduction in the number of trains up to Stanmore.

There was an official proposal for this at one time. Stanmore really is over-served but only through operational convenience (ie. there's nowhere really else to put the trains to reverse on their Northbound trips to ensure sufficient service levels at the South/East end of the line) so it wouldn't be a loss to have half of the Stanmore trains divert to Harrow (on the Hill). Met trains could then all run Semi-fast from Finchley Rd to Harrow (on the Hill), stopping at Wembley Park as and when required.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It is sometimes suggested that the Jubilee Line could take over stopping trains to Harrow on the Hill. Presumably, for that to happen, more trains would be needed and/or reduction in the number of trains up to Stanmore.

If that were to happen, and all Metropolitan Line trains went stopped only at Wembley Park and Finchley Road between Harrow on the Hill and Baker Street, would that free up enough stock to enable the Metropolitan Line Trains to take over the Chiltern Branch to Aylesbury? I'm assuming not (and ignores the lack of electrified rail), but how insufficient would it be?

Academic as you would not get authority to put 3/4th rail down over such a distance ,and the costs would be astronomical with sub stations every few miles.

Yes - the Stanmore branch is hugely over served with lots of fresh air on the trains but it is an important stabling point. (the trains have to rest somewhere) - I think a cursory glance of giving the JLE some Harrow terminators was looked at and dismissed (nowadays of course very difficult as the JLE and Met are seperated by a non-common signalling system!.

 

[Mojo]

(nowadays of course very difficult as the JLE and Met are seperated by a non-common signalling system!.

The proposal was most recently mooted after resignalling had already happened / started on both lines and is not a barrier; after all Jubilee and Met trains work (and will still interact when the new SSR signalling gets up there) over the same tracks that lead into and out of the depot at Neasden, and in any case the local lines and middle platforms at Harrow can be completely segregated from the rest of the Met with some relevantly simple changes to points and crossings which would be required anyway in order to turn trains around quickly.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The proposal was most recently mooted after resignalling had already happened / started on both lines and is not a barrier; after all Jubilee and Met trains work (and will still interact when the new SSR signalling gets up there) over the same tracks that lead into and out of the depot at Neasden, and in any case the local lines and middle platforms at Harrow can be completely segregated from the rest of the Met with some relevantly simple changes to points and crossings which would be required anyway in order to turn trains around quickly.

Thank you for that.

A minor other issue for Aylesbury - (not that it is ever going to happen) is that periodically Chiltern are forced to run longer distance services ME- Aylesbury (reverse) - Princess Risborough and reverse again to go north. An act of almost desperation , but it has been done.

 

[cle]

Academic as you would not get authority to put 3/4th rail down over such a distance ,and the costs would be astronomical with sub stations every few miles.

Yes - the Stanmore branch is hugely over served with lots of fresh air on the trains but it is an important stabling point. (the trains have to rest somewhere) - I think a cursory glance of giving the JLE some Harrow terminators was looked at and dismissed (nowadays of course very difficult as the JLE and Met are seperated by a non-common signalling system!.

Yep I always thought it was the opposite - that Harrow OTH might take on some Jubilee services, and all Met trains would be fast from Wembley to Harrow. Doesn't remove a branch though, so not wildly useful in itself.

 

[stuu]

Why would you want to cut a service that has run for over 100 years through to the City? What is this obsession with making things neater or whatever it is? The Met and Chiltern services exist reasonably well together and as someone who spent 10 long years commuting on the Met I can be very certain that terminating at Baker St would not be a popular solution.

 

[Bucephalus]

Why would you want to cut a service that has run for over 100 years through to the City? What is this obsession with making things neater or whatever it is? The Met and Chiltern services exist reasonably well together and as someone who spent 10 long years commuting on the Met I can be very certain that terminating at Baker St would not be a popular solution.

Fair enough. Maybe there's another way to look at this. How about a handful of peak chiltern services that run through to moorgate (presumably no space at aldgate)?

A 'superfast Met' dmu service of sorts. Is this logistically possible, is there room to run anything faster than the existing fast Met?

 

[JonathanH]

Fair enough. Maybe there's another way to look at this. How about a handful of peak chiltern services that run through to moorgate (presumably no space at aldgate)?

A 'superfast Met' dmu service of sorts. Is this logistically possible, is there room to run anything faster than the existing fast Met?

That idea isn't going to happen with diesel units, not that there would be capacity anyway.

 

[daodao]

Academic as you would not get authority to put 3/4th rail down over such a distance ,and the costs would be astronomical with sub stations every few miles.

Why cannot there be derogations for limited 3rd/4th rail extensions, e.g. Amersham to Aylesbury (which is only 15 miles), or the non-electrified gaps on the Reading-Redhill line? It would enable services to be rationalised and reduce the running of diesel trains over long stretches of electrified track. It would be much simpler for the Metropolitan as part of TfL to run all services south of Aylesbury via Amersham, and for the LSW franchise to run the Reading-Redhill/Gatwick airport services.