Post by Geoffram on Mar 11, 2011 6:16:13 GMT
We know that The Bakerloo was split and extended from Baker Street to Stanmore to take over the existing Metropolitan branch because of over-crowding on the Met line and the difficulty of funnelling all the services into the Finchley Road-Baker Street tunnels.
But what of the Bakerloo? Was it underperforming in the 1930s? We know that as a result of the split, service intervals in the Baker-Street to Elephant & Castle section were increased: was it felt at the time that the Baker Street-Queens Park-Watford section didn't warrant any further increase in service, so that the best way of increasing the in-town frequency would be to split the line? In which case, why was the Bakerloo built with turnback sidings at both West Hampstead (which is relatively near to town) and three stations further on, at Willesden Green, as well as the facility of turning trains at Wembley Park? Were these envisaged as real turning points for the scheduled service, or as emergencies? Did the planners not have enough faith in Stanmore sustaining a frequent service? When the line was split, did half the service go up each branch, or was their a bias towards one leg? Did all the Stanmore branch trains go all the way, or did some turn beforehand?
Because so much else of the New Works Programme was so well-thought out, I'd like to think that the option of building the short length of tunnel between Baker Street and Finchley Road and the resulting re-configuring of the Fast-Slow Met lines, was a 'quick and cheapish fix' to overcowding problems on the Met, rather than a long-term prognosis for the Bakerloo line, which, ironically almost exactly forty years later, would need to be 'unsplit' again.
But what of the Bakerloo? Was it underperforming in the 1930s? We know that as a result of the split, service intervals in the Baker-Street to Elephant & Castle section were increased: was it felt at the time that the Baker Street-Queens Park-Watford section didn't warrant any further increase in service, so that the best way of increasing the in-town frequency would be to split the line? In which case, why was the Bakerloo built with turnback sidings at both West Hampstead (which is relatively near to town) and three stations further on, at Willesden Green, as well as the facility of turning trains at Wembley Park? Were these envisaged as real turning points for the scheduled service, or as emergencies? Did the planners not have enough faith in Stanmore sustaining a frequent service? When the line was split, did half the service go up each branch, or was their a bias towards one leg? Did all the Stanmore branch trains go all the way, or did some turn beforehand?
Because so much else of the New Works Programme was so well-thought out, I'd like to think that the option of building the short length of tunnel between Baker Street and Finchley Road and the resulting re-configuring of the Fast-Slow Met lines, was a 'quick and cheapish fix' to overcowding problems on the Met, rather than a long-term prognosis for the Bakerloo line, which, ironically almost exactly forty years later, would need to be 'unsplit' again.
