Should the Metropolitan Line become part of the London Overground network?

[RacsoMoquette]

As a passenger on the Metropolitan Line, I think the line is very comparable to the LO Lines, as for the start of its journey it runs through the city to destinations such as Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Kings X. Though from Finchley Road, the line would in my opinion be much more suited to be on the LO network. As Chesham, Amersham, Watford are similarly as far out as Enfield Town, Cheshunt, Chingford on the Weaver and Watford Junction on the Lioness. I just think that the Metropolitan is rather an outlier and could benefit from being part of the LO network. Anyway I doubt this change would ever occur, but this is pure speculation!

 

[Mgameing123]

As a passenger on the Metropolitan Line, I think the line is very comparable to the LO Lines, as for the start of its journey it runs through the city to destinations such as Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Kings X. Though from Finchley Road, the line would in my opinion be much more suited to be on the LO network. As Chesham, Amersham, Watford are similarly as far out as Enfield Town, Cheshunt, Chingford on the Weaver and Watford Junction on the Lioness. I just think that the Metropolitan is rather an outlier and could benefit from being part of the LO network. Anyway I doubt this change would ever occur, but this is pure speculation!

Not really to be honest mainly because of the Harrow on the Hill - Aldgate section.

 

[stuu]

No. It is an integral part of the Underground. The whole point of the Overground was to improve the service on NR lines to make them similar to the Underground. The Met already is, so what's the point?

 

[35B]

Not to mention that the Metropolitan Railway Company believed itself to be a main line company, and a century or so ago was first excluded from Grouping (in which it would probably have been folded into the LNER), and then dragged unwillingly into the London Passenger Transport Board. All the changes since then have been to align it with the Underground, and reversing that would be seriously hard.

 

[sjoh]

I just think that the Metropolitan is rather an outlier and could benefit from being part of the LO network.

What exactly would the benefit be? Swapping around operations of services just because they 'look similar' to others isn't a particularly efficient use of resources, so there'd need to be a tangible benefit which I don't see.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

What exactly would the benefit be? Swapping around operations of services just because they 'look similar' to others isn't a particularly efficient use of resources, so there'd need to be a tangible benefit which I don't see.

I thought that the Metropolitan Line would benefit from being absorbed in to the London Overground network as it would improve wayfinding for commuters and tourists alike, as currently the line seems rather confusing as it is rather odd that a line of such distance and spends much time (north of Harrow On The Hill) in Buckinghamshire! So it may be confusing that a suburban railway is part of the “London Underground” whereas it is more comparable to the suburban lines out of Waterloo, Liverpool Street, Kings X or Moorgate. But as I doubt TFL would want the line to be removed from their operations, I though it becoming part of the newly named LO network would be a decent compromise. Also the Met is one of the lesser used tube lines, theirfore it being given a new name and new branding may attract better ridership?

What exactly would the benefit be? Swapping around operations of services just because they 'look similar' to others isn't a particularly efficient use of resources, so there'd need to be a tangible benefit which I don't see.

I thought that the Metropolitan Line would benefit from being absorbed in to the London Overground network as itwould improve wayfinding for commuters and tourists alike, as currently the line seems rather confusing as it is rather odd that a line of such distance and spends much time (north of Harrow On The Hill) in Buckinghamshire! So it may be confusing that a suburban railway is part of the “London Underground” whereas it is more comparable to the suburbanlines out of Waterloo, Liverpool Street, Kings X or Moorgate. But as I doubt TFL would want the line to be removed from the it becoming part of the newly named LO network would be a decent compromise

Apologies: Automerge trouble. Please bear with my system*

 

[stuu]

Why is it any more suburban than the Central line to Epping?

It's not broke so don't fix it

 

[Basil Jet]

The Met has more in common with the Elizabeth Line than the Overground. The low frequencies at Chesham and Amersham are an embarrassment and a breaking of the Underground promise, so you could argue that it *is* broken and there *is* a reason to fix it by making it part of the Crossrail mode, with purple roundels with "Metropolitan Line" outside the stations instead of red ones with "Underground" on infrequently served stations in Buckinghamshire.

 

[edwin_m]

If it terminated at Baker Street then Overground branding might be sensible, but I think a different branding for half (?) the trains on the essentially turn-up-and-go section between there and Liverpool Street just causes confusion.

 

[Dannytrainfan1]

As a passenger on the Metropolitan Line, I think the line is very comparable to the LO Lines, as for the start of its journey it runs through the city to destinations such as Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Kings X. Though from Finchley Road, the line would in my opinion be much more suited to be on the LO network. As Chesham, Amersham, Watford are similarly as far out as Enfield Town, Cheshunt, Chingford on the Weaver and Watford Junction on the Lioness. I just think that the Metropolitan is rather an outlier and could benefit from being part of the LO network. Anyway I doubt this change would ever occur, but this is pure speculation!

As long as the Metropolitan line could still do services, for example Aldgate to Harrow and Uxbridge, then I think it could work, Chiltern would still use platforms 1 & 2 for north and southbound services, LU could use 3 & 4 going to Uxbridge, and the overground could use 5 & 6.

If this would happen though, it could be an idea to where it would split off at harrow, go onto or near the WCML as far as Wilsden Junction, join the line to Richmond and once Old Oak Common is done, take over the line from Brentford down to Hounslow

Or continue down to Clapham junction and take over/run extra services to Hampton Court or Sheperton,

I do partly agree with this, but won't be a good shot for TFL since the Metropolitan line is already quite popular, and has more seating capacity, where as the overground has less and the line would have to be closed for at least a year for transfer, affecting Chiltern Railways as well, still good idea though

 

[Babybirdrobin]

I don’t think LO is a good idea for this but surely, a chiltern shuttle to Chesham and then take over the LU services out beyond the Watford branch with LU trains from those branches being diverted would be better, so the service would look like:

LU - Moorgate and Aldgate to Uxbridge, half of Met services (of these a further quarter would be fast or SF)
LU - Baker St and Aldgate to Watford, half of Met services (of these, a further half of peak trains would be fast or SF)
Chiltern - Marylebone to AVP calling at Harrow-on-the-hill, Amersham, then all stations to their destination, current frequency
Chiltern - Marylebone to Aylesbury/Amersham calling at All Stations (2TPH)
Chiltern - Chalfont to Chesham Shuttle, one train service
This would involve Chiltern getting more stock

Despite that I suggested the above, it does not mean I think it is a good idea, I just think that that would make more sense service wise but operationally that would not work and I do understand that, meaning that overall I think keeping it as it is would be the best option

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

I don’t think LO is a good idea for this but surely, a chiltern shuttle to Chesham and then take over the LU services out beyond the Watford branch with LU trains from those branches being diverted would be better, so the service would look like:

LU - Moorgate and Aldgate to Uxbridge, half of Met services (of these a further quarter would be fast or SF)
LU - Baker St and Aldgate to Watford, half of Met services (of these, a further half of peak trains would be fast or SF)
Chiltern - Marylebone to AVP calling at Harrow-on-the-hill, Amersham, then all stations to their destination, current frequency
Chiltern - Marylebone to Aylesbury/Amersham calling at All Stations (2TPH)
Chiltern - Chalfont to Chesham Shuttle, one train service
This would involve Chiltern getting more stock

Despite that I suggested the above, it does not mean I think it is a good idea, I just think that that would make more sense service wise but operationally that would not work and I do understand that, meaning that overall I think keeping it as it is would be the best option

I think the idea of reducing Chesham to a mere shuttle would be a terrible idea, given it would just make the line less attractive to many, which was one of the benefits of introducing the through service in 2010 in the first place. Maybe a better idea would be to have some trains divide at Chalfont to maintain through services.

Even then, one reason why changing from London Underground to Chiltern Railways wouldnt really work is that they have electrification on the line up to Amersham, and Chiltern and its current stock cant utilise that, so replacing electric services with diesels is environmentally unfriendly and obviously aint going to happen.

Broadly, we have the status quo for a reason. While there could be some justification for taking some Amersham, Chesham and maybe Watford trains out of the core shared section of the Metropolitan line, on the grounds they are more akin to outer suburban and even rural services, more suited for terminating at Marylebone, taking all of them out and transferring the service just would make many services worse, so i just cant see much benefit to changing over.

And transferring to the Overground is little more than a white elephant rebrand, serving no new practical benefit whatsoever.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

As long as the Metropolitan line could still do services, for example Aldgate to Harrow and Uxbridge, then I think it could work, Chiltern would still use platforms 1 & 2 for north and southbound services, LU could use 3 & 4 going to Uxbridge, and the overground could use 5 & 6.

If this would happen though, it could be an idea to where it would split off at harrow, go onto or near the WCML as far as Wilsden Junction, join the line to Richmond and once Old Oak Common is done, take over the line from Brentford down to Hounslow

Or continue down to Clapham junction and take over/run extra services to Hampton Court or Sheperton,

I do partly agree with this, but won't be a good shot for TFL since the Metropolitan line is already quite popular, and has more seating capacity, where as the overground has less and the line would have to be closed for at least a year for transfer, affecting Chiltern Railways as well, still good idea though

I agree SWRs suburban network would be ideal if it got taken over by TFL! As many of the commuter lines are in between the Zone 1 or 6, I think TFL taking over all SWR and Southern “Metro” services would be beneficial for customers and it would mean for more consistent fares, consistent TFL branding and further Oyster Card useage. I know that is very unlikely to occur, but I think the GN Metro services out of Moorgate to destinations in Hertfordshire have a higher chance of becoming part of the London Overground. As a change of hands may provide those neglected and eerie stations south of Dayton Park a much needed referbishement!

The Met has more in common with the Elizabeth Line than the Overground. The low frequencies at Chesham and Amersham are an embarrassment and a breaking of the Underground promise, so you could argue that it *is* broken and there *is* a reason to fix it by making it part of the Crossrail mode, with purple roundels with "Metropolitan Line" outside the stations instead of red ones with "Underground" on infrequently served stations in Buckinghamshire.

That is a very good point, in a previous reply we touched upon the Metropolitan being absorbed in to the Crossrail 2. The Met could be the north end of the line, while another could theoretically take over the GN Metro out of Moorgate to Stevenage and Welwyn GC. While it would take over the SWR Metro to Shepperton and Chessington South on the southern end of the line. The reason why theoretically the Met may be improved if it became part of Crossrail 2, is that it may improve frequencies at the north- western extremities of the line, which have seen fluctuating reliability. Also Aldgate is a weird Zone 1 termini ( akin to Elephant & Castle Bakerloo) and the Met just seems to terminate randomly just after Moorgate and Liverpool Street. The Met often seems lightly loaded from Kings X onwards going to the centre. if Crossrail 2 were to occur in the next 10-15 years, tunneling to Moorgate on the Northern City should not be to complicated right? (if the branches to Shepperton, Chessington & WAML go ahead subject to change though)

 

[A S Leib]

That is a very good point, in a previous reply we touched upon the Metropolitan being absorbed in to the Crossrail 2. The Met could be the north end of the line

Moor Park etc.'s the best part of twenty miles from the proposed northern section on the West Anglia Main Line, which I don't think lends those lines to being branches at the same end of a line well.

The reason why theoretically the Met may be improved if it became part of Crossrail 2, is that it may improve frequencies at the north- western extremities of the line, which have seen fluctuating reliability

Separating the Met from the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines might do that; I doubt making those services run through Surbiton or Richmond would lend itself to much more reliability than the current situation.

Also Aldgate is a weird Zone 1 termini ( akin to Elephant & Castle Bakerloo) and the Met just seems to terminate randomly just after Moorgate and Liverpool Street.

If it could be done in a way which doesn't involve negative impacts on reliability or frequency on the Met, Circle or District, I'd agree with extending Met services to Tower Hill. Apart from that I think part of the issue is that c2c and the DLR already provide relatively reliable, frequent services to most of the destinations where Aldgate's a natural starting point from.

The Met often seems lightly loaded from Kings X onwards going to the centre.

But far less lightly loaded at times, in my experience, from Aldgate and Liverpool Street to Pinner and north.

 

[Mgameing123]

The Met has more in common with the Elizabeth Line than the Overground. The low frequencies at Chesham and Amersham are an embarrassment and a breaking of the Underground promise, so you could argue that it *is* broken and there *is* a reason to fix it by making it part of the Crossrail mode, with purple roundels with "Metropolitan Line" outside the stations instead of red ones with "Underground" on infrequently served stations in Buckinghamshire.

Except Amersham & Chesham. All stations get a minimum frequency of every 15 minutes. That is quite frequent if you ask me!

 

[stuu]

Can someone suggest any possible benefit to anyone of changing the colour of the signs? What problem does this fix?

 

[Mgameing123]

Can someone suggest any possible benefit to anyone of changing the colour of the signs? What problem does this fix?

Nothing!

 

[mr_jrt]

Not so fussed about the colour of the signs, but I would like to see the line beyond of Rickmansworth running heavily upgraded with longer NR trains running at 90+ mph, ideally with OHLE.

The uplift in capacity would then relieve adjacent routes (i.e. the WCML), and enable more commuter housing through the Chilterns along the line. My preference for achieving that is cutting the Met back to Uxbridge and Watford and giving NR exclusive use of the fast lines north of HotH and beyond, but the southern end is a bit of an open question.

Even if you could expand capacity at Marylebone, it's not exactly in a convenient location, so sending passengers there is unlikely to be helpful...but you're not going to be able to expand the Met to Thameslink-levels of capacity, at least not without smashing adjacent pairs of the stations around the Circle into each other, anyway, so I'm not sure what the answer is, there.

There's plenty of fanciful crayon options, though. Most of these have been done to death in the past, but off the top of my head we have:

• Marylebone low-level, Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner, Victoria low-level, and beyond.
• As above, but instead dive down east of Willesden Green, then tunnel under the Edgware Road to hit Edgware Road instead of Marylebone.
• Finchley Road, Euston low-level (could also take WCML suburban services?), Holborn (or TCR?), Waterloo low-level, and beyond.
• Finchley Road to the Fenchurch St. lines.
• ...and so on.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Any suggestion on changing the Metropolitan Line which doesn't include the reinstatement of a Pullman service need not be taken seriously....

 

[The Planner]

Not so fussed about the colour of the signs, but I would like to see the line beyond of Rickmansworth running heavily upgraded with longer NR trains running at 90+ mph, ideally with OHLE.

The uplift in capacity would then relieve adjacent routes (i.e. the WCML), and enable more commuter housing through the Chilterns along the line. My preference for achieving that is cutting the Met back to Uxbridge and Watford and giving NR exclusive use of the fast lines north of HotH and beyond, but the southern end is a bit of an open question.

Not convinced high speeds would be a lot of use based on how close the stations are and if you are expecting to stop everywhere. Where are the extra trains going at the north end, as you need somewhere to put all the extra trains and turn them around? Aylesbury wouldn't be able to do it as it is.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Not so fussed about the colour of the signs, but I would like to see the line beyond of Rickmansworth running heavily upgraded with longer NR trains running at 90+ mph, ideally with OHLE.

The uplift in capacity would then relieve adjacent routes (i.e. the WCML), and enable more commuter housing through the Chilterns along the line. My preference for achieving that is cutting the Met back to Uxbridge and Watford and giving NR exclusive use of the fast lines north of HotH and beyond, but the southern end is a bit of an open question.

North of Rickmansworth the line runs through the south Buckinghamshire hills and until Wendover has numerous speed restricting curves. Chiltern's DMUs are capable of 90 mph but they're not allowed to run at that speed over that section of track. I question your assumption that people in places like Leighton Buzzard and Hemel Hempstead would transfer to the Chiltern Line if the trains were longer.

 

[sk688]

The Met could start with a Night tube service for one as one of the biggest service improvements.

Ridiculous that there is no night services serving that part of North West London west of Harrow-on-the-Hill, although Watford passengers have trains out of Euston that run late enough at least

 

[bramling]

As a passenger on the Metropolitan Line, I think the line is very comparable to the LO Lines, as for the start of its journey it runs through the city to destinations such as Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Kings X. Though from Finchley Road, the line would in my opinion be much more suited to be on the LO network. As Chesham, Amersham, Watford are similarly as far out as Enfield Town, Cheshunt, Chingford on the Weaver and Watford Junction on the Lioness. I just think that the Metropolitan is rather an outlier and could benefit from being part of the LO network. Anyway I doubt this change would ever occur, but this is pure speculation!

What benefits do you think would occur from changing to LO?

The Met has more in common with the Elizabeth Line than the Overground. The low frequencies at Chesham and Amersham are an embarrassment and a breaking of the Underground promise, so you could argue that it *is* broken and there *is* a reason to fix it by making it part of the Crossrail mode, with purple roundels with "Metropolitan Line" outside the stations instead of red ones with "Underground" on infrequently served stations in Buckinghamshire.

So Amersham has 4tph to London off-peak, and Chesham 2tph. This compares well with similar towns just outside London, though the journey times aren’t wonderful.

The further one gets towards Amersham, the more users seem to regard Chiltern as their preferred London service, especially off-peak. This would suggest that users value a semi-fast outer-suburban rail service, rather than a slow metro service which is what London Overground is.

 

[A S Leib]

I question your assumption that people in places like Leighton Buzzard and Hemel Hempstead would transfer to the Chiltern Line if the trains were longer.

My family already sometimes drive and use Rickmansworth (or Radlett) instead of Hemel because of the cost; the length of Chiltern trains isn't a consideration.

Ridiculous that there is no night services serving that part of North West London west of Harrow-on-the-Hill, although Watford passengers have trains out of Euston that run late enough at least

The Heathrow to Harlow bus is close to 24/7, if not particularly convenient for e.g. Wembley to Chesham.

 

[Mgameing123]

The Met could start with a Night tube service for one as one of the biggest service improvements.

Ridiculous that there is no night services serving that part of North West London west of Harrow-on-the-Hill, although Watford passengers have trains out of Euston that run late enough at least

I don't think a Met Line night tube would be a good idea. I'd start with a night bus first.

 

[RT4038]

Any suggestion on changing the Metropolitan Line which doesn't include the reinstatement of a Pullman service need not be taken seriously....

and the reopening of Grandborough Road and Winslow Road stations, and of course the Brill Branch, terminus of a 30 min frequency service from Watford.

 

[mr_jrt]

Not convinced high speeds would be a lot of use based on how close the stations are and if you are expecting to stop everywhere. Where are the extra trains going at the north end, as you need somewhere to put all the extra trains and turn them around? Aylesbury wouldn't be able to do it as it is.

I would imagine the higher speeds would be useful south of Rickmansworth, where you would only serve HotH and maybe one other interchange before Marylebone or some other core section. North of Rickmansworth could offer scope for future line upgrade projects, if needed. Given the scale of what's being proposed, I would imagine works to turn more services would be quite in-scope. In my mind I would imagine services turning at Chesham, Amersham, Aylesbury (Vale Parkway?), and Milton Keynes. Though if I'm honest, I'd imagine reverting Chesham back to a shuttle makes the most sense. Increasing the quality of the "mainline" service means the interchange would be much less onerous.

North of Rickmansworth the line runs through the south Buckinghamshire hills and until Wendover has numerous speed restricting curves. Chiltern's DMUs are capable of 90 mph but they're not allowed to run at that speed over that section of track. I question your assumption that people in places like Leighton Buzzard and Hemel Hempstead would transfer to the Chiltern Line if the trains were longer.

They wouldn't, no, but the people in Aylesbury and surrounding areas that drive to Tring to use the far (subjectively) better WCML service might not feel the need to do so if their local stations offered better service.

 

[Mgameing123]

Any suggestion on changing the Metropolitan Line which doesn't include the reinstatement of a Pullman service need not be taken seriously....

A. Croxley Rail Link
B. All trains from Amersham/Chesham/Watford don't stop at Northwick Park & Preston Road as the Uxbridge services does the job.

 

[PeterC]

I dont think the idea of reducing Chesham to a mere shuttle would be a terrible idea, given it would just make the line less attractive to many, which was one of the benefits of introducing the through service in 2010 in the first place. Maybe a better idea would be to have some trains divide at Chalfont to maintain through services.

Reinstatement of the shuttle would improve resilience. I don't know how often it actually happens but there is certainly a,lot of local bad feeling over branch line trains being diverted to Amersham at short notice.

 

[Class15]

I don’t think LO is a good idea for this but surely, a chiltern shuttle to Chesham and then take over the LU services out beyond the Watford branch with LU trains from those branches being diverted would be better, so the service would look like:

LU - Moorgate and Aldgate to Uxbridge, half of Met services (of these a further quarter would be fast or SF)
LU - Baker St and Aldgate to Watford, half of Met services (of these, a further half of peak trains would be fast or SF)
Chiltern - Marylebone to AVP calling at Harrow-on-the-hill, Amersham, then all stations to their destination, current frequency
Chiltern - Marylebone to Aylesbury/Amersham calling at All Stations (2TPH)
Chiltern - Chalfont to Chesham Shuttle, one train service
This would involve Chiltern getting more stock

Despite that I suggested the above, it does not mean I think it is a good idea, I just think that that would make more sense service wise but operationally that would not work and I do understand that, meaning that overall I think keeping it as it is would be the best option

The Chesham branch was electrified in 1960 and gained direct trains to Central London in 2010. It wouldn’t be particularly popular to go over to a diesel shuttle to Chalfont, using (let’s be honest) knackered 30+ years old DMUs. In my experience the through service has attracted many new users to the line, and it would be a massive shame to see it go away.