Metropolitian line and Beeching: what might have happened?

[deltic]

If the Metropolitian line had been under British Rail at the time of Beeching, would it have been survived in its present state?

The branch line to Chesham feels like a throw back to the 1960s, running through a rural area with barely a handful of passengers travelling off-peak.

Amersham services beyond Harrow could possibly just have been served by British Rail's Aylesbury service, while the Watford branch could have been seen as duplicating the LMR service to Euston, due to passenger numbers at the time being considerably less than they are today.

 

[thesignalman]

If the Metropolitian line had been under British Rail at the time of Beeching, would it have been survived in its present state?

The branch line to Chesham feels like a throw back to the 1960s, running through a rural area with barely a handful of passengers travelling off-peak.

Amersham services beyond Harrow could possibly just have been served by British Rail's Aylesbury service, while the Watford branch could have been seen as duplicating the LMR service to Euston, due to passenger numbers at the time being considerably less than they are today.

There was far too much commuter traffic to consider such cuts. When Chesham was electrified there were even plans for an intermediate crossing point on the single line between Chalfont and Chesham, although in the event it was never built.

The whole point of electrification (and dieselisation of the BR services) was to be able to increase services to cope with the loadings.

John

 

[eldomtom2]

But remember that Beeching proposed closure of the North London line and the Liverpool-Southport line. Being an electrified commuter line with frequent service was not enough to escape closure proposals...

 

[MarlowDonkey]

If the Metropolitian line had been under British Rail at the time of Beeching, would it have been survived in its present state?

The London Passenger Transport Board had already pruned the services north of Aylesbury when they took charge of the Metropolitan in the 1930s.

Most London commuter routes survived Beeching. A couple that didn't were West Drayton to Staines and West Drayton to Uxbridge. These had the difficulty of being north to south rather than east to west as well has having alternative routes to Central London at both ends.

 

[Gareth1990]

The London Passenger Transport Board had already pruned the services north of Aylesbury when they took charge of the Metropolitan in the 1930s.

Most London commuter routes survived Beeching. A couple that didn't were West Drayton to Staines and West Drayton to Uxbridge. These had the difficulty of being north to south rather than east to west as well has having alternative routes to Central London at both ends.

The branch from West Drayton to Uxbridge would be very well used today, a major alternative to the Met linking up with the Elizabeth line

 

[Taunton]

It's a little surprising nowadays that the 1960 Met alterations included extending electrification beyond Rickmansworth, rather than making Moor Park a transfer station and handing all beyond to BR, with the 4-tracking from Harrow put in then completely isolating the two systems. But it was when London Transport's remit extended out beyond current boundaries; all the area buses, although painted green instead of red, were London Transport as well.

 

[deltic]

I find it hard to believe there were that many commuters from Chesham and Amersham station is less than 2 miles away. How well used was the Watford branch given there were also peak time services from Croxley on the LMR?

 

[30907]

I find it hard to believe there were that many commuters from Chesham and Amersham station is less than 2 miles away. How well used was the Watford branch given there were also peak time services from Croxley on the LMR?

If I'm not mistaken, Watford was always quiet but a convenient terminal, the real business was from Northwood et al.

Beeching would have been too late to stop Chesham electrification, but if BR had been handed everything beyond Moor Park in 1948 one could imagine a completely DMU solution - assuming Marylebone could have found the space which I doubt TBH.

 

[etr221]

It's a little surprising nowadays that the 1960 Met alterations included extending electrification beyond Rickmansworth, rather than making Moor Park a transfer station and handing all beyond to BR, with the 4-tracking from Harrow put in then completely isolating the two systems. But it was when London Transport's remit extended out beyond current boundaries; all the area buses, although painted green instead of red, were London Transport as well.

The origin of the Met quadrupling beyond Harrow and electrification beyond Rickmansworth scheme was the late 1930s 'New Works' programme - essentially the last part of it to come to fruition.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The Chesham branch can only manage a very limited service, much less than usagec further south required. Presumably Amersham was chosen as the most convenient point to terminate the rest of the electric services. Of course, in 1960 it was still expected that trains going beyond Amersham would be going to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. had it been known that, only a few years later, no trains would be going beyond Aylesbury, that might have been chosen as the limit of electrification instead of Amersham.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As Chairman of the British Transport Commission from 1961 and into 1962 it was Dr Beeching who was over the London Transport Executive as well as the railways, docks, canals and other stuff.
The electrification, quadrupling north of Harrow and introduction of the ‘A’ stock happened on his watch. Great results were expected. The Underground was making a profit of around £3million on a turnover of around £30million. Rationalisation was on nobody’s agenda.

Construction of the Victoria Line was starting, the last of the trolley buses went, new depot for London Country Buses at Harlow, new Green Line luxury coaches; what could possibly go wrong?

Marples and Beeching handed London Transport on from the BTC in good shape.

(Meanwhile some of BR’s own third rail urban electric lines, including Southport, Bury, the North London Line and Newcastle were a different kettle of fish with ageing equipment, falling demand and rising costs.)

 

[Dr_Paul]

The branch from West Drayton to Uxbridge would be very well used today, a major alternative to the Met linking up with the Elizabeth line

There were plans to link the two ex-GWR branches to Uxbridge, and I believe that work had started on the project. This could have been a success, with some services from the High Wycombe line going via Uxbridge to Paddington, a potentially far quicker service than the long slog on the Metropolitan Line. And possibly also an Uxbridge loop service, as there was a triangle junction (or a trackbed for one) at the northern end.

 

[eldomtom2]

(Meanwhile some of BR’s own third rail urban electric lines, including Southport, Bury, the North London Line and Newcastle were a different kettle of fish with ageing equipment, falling demand and rising costs.)

But still some of the busiest passenger lines outside of London, and far busier than many lines not proposed for closure, for important context.

 

[norbitonflyer]

As Chairman of the British Transport Commission from 1961 and into 1962 it was Dr Beeching who was over the London Transport Executive
The electrification, quadrupling north of Harrow and introduction of the ‘A’ stock happened on his watch.

They may have been completed on his watch, but he can't be given the credit for them.

Beeching became Chairman, succeeding Sir Brian Robertson, in March 1961, six months after electrification to Amersham was completed. And as its name suggests, the A60 stock was already being built, albeit it didn't enter service until June. The quadrupling was also completed in 1961 (i don't hve an exact date).

 

[Pegpilot]

The Chesham branch might well have withered on the vine when S Stock was introduced as significant investment was required to make it work. Firstly, the power people identified that the single-end fed 4-mile branch would require a significant traction supply beef-up to get an 8-car S Stock set up the hill to Chesham. And then the bay platform at Chesham was only long enough to take a half-length A Stock set as I recall, so the concept of the shuttle service to connect with the main at Chalfont was a non-starter without major site remodelling. But every through path from Chesham to town would abstract capacity from the Uxbridge and Amersham branches, so it was all a bit of a mess. Looking at WTT 347 I see the branch gets roughly a twice hourly service.

 

[A S Leib]

The quadrupling was also completed in 1961 (i don't hve an exact date).

I don't have a Newspaper Archive subscription so I can't be certain, but from the excerpts I can read, it looks like the second island platform at Moor Park at least opened on 23 April 1961. Another article of 29 December that year said that Moor Park to Watford South Junction hadn't yet been completed.

 

[pitdiver]

When I worked on the Met there was a rumour that under no circumstances will the Chesham branch be closed. This was due to the number of senior LT managers that lived in the Chesham area. How true, I don't know.

 

[A S Leib]

Given proximity to Aylesbury and Princes Risborough, I wonder if 121s would ever have been used to Chesham if that line hadn't been electrified and kept open, or if that would have been considered insufficient capacity.

 

[PeterC]

The OP's scenario requires the Metropolitan Railway to have been included in the 1921 Grrouping with the LPTB taking what is now the Hammersmith and City around a decade later.

An alternative development would have been the LNER promptly selling off the Hammersmith and Circle operation to UERL.

Either way I suspect that the LNER would have been looking at rationalising the Maryebone / Baker Street pair of termini and the situationin Beeching's time would have been a bit different.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Dr Beeching's Annual Report for the British Transport Commission for 1961 gives a clear update for the Metropolitan Line in the narrative section for the London Transport Executive. The four-tracking was still in progress; the A stock had been introduced in June 1961 after trial running; and 16 of the 58 new trains were running at year end.
The Report for 1962 records completion of the project in that year.

 

[norbitonflyer]

And then the bay platform at Chesham was only long enough to take a half-length A Stock set as I recall, so the concept of the shuttle service to connect with the main at Chalfont was a non-starter without major site remodelling.

Itw as the bay at Chalfont that could only take four cars. Chesham could always take eight.

 

[PeterC]

Itw as the bay at Chalfont that could only take four cars. Chesham could always take eight.

There is a short bay platform at Chesham with the track long since lifted. The main, now the only, platform was also the through line to the goods yard.

 

[TrenHotel]

The Chesham branch can only manage a very limited service, much less than usagec further south required. Presumably Amersham was chosen as the most convenient point to terminate the rest of the electric services. Of course, in 1960 it was still expected that trains going beyond Amersham would be going to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. had it been known that, only a few years later, no trains would be going beyond Aylesbury, that might have been chosen as the limit of electrification instead of Amersham.

I've never seen the original New Works document, but (according to the Wiki page for it) the original plan was to electrify all the way to Aylesbury.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I've never seen the original New Works document, but (according to the Wiki page for it) the original plan was to electrify all the way to Aylesbury.

Various incomplete parts of the New Works programme were abandoned after the war. The extensions of the Northern out to Bushey and the Alexandra Palace branch were amongst them. Also dropped was the Central Line extension to Denham as well as electrification all the way to Aylesbury. Shortage of funds and materials no doubt came into it, but the Town and Country Planning Acts would have inhibited the Metroland developments that could have provided an economic justification for the modernisation.

 

[Gloster]

The Uxbridge Loop was proposed in the last years of the nineteenth century, but until 1899 it was proposed to run further west and link Denham with West Drayton. Work on the section at the north end started in 1900, but only opened in 1907 after the main line. By this time the Metropolitan were operating to Uxbridge via Ickenham and the GWR seems to have lost interest. Only a small amount of work immediately south of High Street station was ever carried out. The east to south curve at the junction, necessary for the circular service, was probably never used and was lifted in 1916. The whole line was closed in 1915 and when reopened in 1920 it had been singled. The line closed to passengers in 1939 but a sparse goods service to the siding that had been belatedly provided at Uxbridge continued to 1964 and to a fuel depot at the south end of the east to south of the curve for another year or so.

Sources: G.W.R Disused Stations in Greater London (Connor, Connor & Butler, 2000) and Section 26, Second Edition, of Cooke’s Diagrams.

One point worth mentioning is that all lines between Harrow South Junction and Aylesbury South Junction, previously Met & GC Joint, were transferred to LTE on 25 June 1950; LTE lost all lines further north. At 00.01 on 11 September 1961 the lines from just over one-and-a-quarter miles north of Amersham were transferred to the LMR.

I don't have a Newspaper Archive subscription so I can't be certain, but from the excerpts I can read, it looks like the second island platform at Moor Park at least opened on 23 April 1961. Another article of 29 December that year said that Moor Park to Watford South Junction hadn't yet been completed.

It seems that a platform was built on the new pair of lines and traffic transferred to it, after which the original ones were closed and a new platform built. Only from 23 April 1961 were all four lines and both platforms at Moor Park in service.

One idea current after Beeching, although it wasn’t in the report, was to close Amersham-Aylesbury; Aylesbury would probably still be served from Paddington via High Wycombe. As an alternative to buses LT considered electrifying to Great Missenden or Wendover, although the latter was considered likely to not be worth it for the amount of traffic. However, rising traffic and expected capacity problems knocked this on the head, for a while at least…

Source: The Metropolitan Line (Horne, Capital, 2003).

EDIT: underlined sections corrected.

 

[Mr. SW]

I would have thought that electrification would have continued to Aylesbury and the closure of the GCR London Extension would have been used an excuse to close Aylesbury-Princes Rizz, South Ruislip-Neasden Junction-Marylebone with all remaining BR traffic being sent down the New North Main Line to Paddington. The Chesham and Watford branches would have remined as is.

But it is interesting to speculate.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I would have thought that electrification would have continued to Aylesbury and the closure of the GCR London Extension would have been used an excuse to close Aylesbury-Princes Rizz, South Ruislip-Neasden Junction-Marylebone with all remaining BR traffic being sent down the New North Main Line to Paddington.

Closure of Marylebone would have left open the question as to whether there would have been sufficient capacity at Baker Street and Paddington to cope with the extra traffic. Wasn't there a proposal to do something along those lines in the mid 1980s? Marylebone would have become a coach station.

 

[sad1e]

Either way I suspect that the LNER would have been looking at rationalising the Maryebone / Baker Street pair of termini and the situationin Beeching's time would have been a bit different.

I doubt the LNER would have been able to do that. I doubt there was capacity into Baker Street to be able to fit the met suburban service plus the long distance Great Central services to Nottingham Sheffield and Rugby.

Would you have even been able to fit larger engines through the cut and cover tunnels and into Baker st anyway as being limited to smaller locos may have been problematic for the longer distance services.

 

[Gloster]

I doubt the LNER would have been able to do that. I doubt there was capacity into Baker Street to be able to fit the met suburban service plus the long distance Great Central services to Nottingham Sheffield and Rugby.

Would you have even been able to fit larger engines through the cut and cover tunnels and into Baker st anyway as being limited to smaller locos may have been problematic for the longer distance services.

The loading gauge might have been a problem compared to the GCR/LNER one, but this would primarily have been due to the central height being significantly less than any other company: this is rather important in a route largely in tunnels. Even if this could be solved, I think that handling large tender locos in the cramped confines of Baker Street would have left little room for anything but the shortest trains.

Closure of Marylebone would have left open the question as to whether there would have been sufficient capacity at Baker Street and Paddington to cope with the extra traffic. Wasn't there a proposal to do something along those lines in the mid 1980s? Marylebone would have become a coach station.

This was the Railway Conversion League who came up with an impractical and inadequately thought out plan to turn Marylebone into a coach station around 1985, although I think it my have previously surfaced in the late 1970s. It got a lot of publicity as it was very much inline with anti-state-owned, pro-privatisation and deregulation ethos of the Thatcher government. I believe that Sir Alfred Sherman was involved and that the main spokesman was Lance Ibbotson, former WR and SR General Manager. (I must go and wash my mouth and mind out now.)

 

[A S Leib]

Was there a noticeable increase in service frequency (and hence decrease in available capacity) once Paddington intercity services switched to HSTs? If so, would that have been at a time to make moving Chiltern services there harder?