Four Car Trains

Also strikes me as a bit of a pain from both an operational and timetabling perspective to get trains to drop off 4 empty carriages or pick them up before and after the peaks..

Off peak travel has grown enormously in the last fifty years and 8 car trains are therefore necessary on the inner zones of the Met Line nearly all day (the only possible exception being in the early morning). Four car trains only really make sense if you are going to be able to split trains at quiet times and then you need stabling space at the ends of the line (as well as at Neasden).

You also lose a lot of space by having central cabs in trains and it is harder to get passengers into the trains where the central cabs are. On the S8 units, the doors are close to the ends of the cars.

The original thoughts were that uncoupling needs (apart from space, as said upthread) people - and shunters. I guess some bean-counter worked out that the cost of extra electricity was less than the wage cost of the extra staff. Also at that time, staff were very hard to find and, if there were not enough, whole lines could come to a halt with uncoupled bits left in station platforms. And also also (!) the time taken in platforms could only work with a much more leisurely off-peak timetable pattern than there is today.

Coupling and uncoupling used to take place on the Underground network-wide until staff shortages (along with other reasons) made it expensive and unworkable.

Uncoupling ceased on the Piccadilly and Central end-1959, Northern and Bakerloo March 1961, District 1971 and Metropolitan 1981/82. I remember short trains on all these lines and the uncoupling/coupling up.

In summary in the post-war period this took place at -

Picc - Northfields, Uxbridge, South Harrow, Arnos Grove and Cockfosters.
Central - Loughton, Hainault, White City and West Ruislip and, for a short period only, Ealing Broadway.
Northern - Edgware, Golders Green, High Barnet, and Morden.
Bakerloo - Stanmore, Watford Junction and Queen's Park.
District - Ealing Broadway, Parsons Green and Upminster.
Metropolitan - Uxbridge, Watford, Amersham and Rickmansworth.

The story of uncoupling pre-WW2 is very complex and was not necessarily a case of a unit off or on. On the Hampstead & City/Morden-Edgware/Northern, for instance, short trains between 2 and 5 cars of Pre-1938 Stock were operated, some uncoupling from, say, 7 to 5 at one location, with another 2 or 3 cars off at the other end of the line and vice versa later. Added to the complication was the fact that trains becaue 'turned' on the Kennington loop.

In 1938/39 for example, the Met mostly coupled up and uncoupled at Wembley Park. Some of the trains were a case of one set coupling to the one behind, but others coupling from different destinations. In the afternoon, one 4-car from Stanmore relied on the 4-car from Rayners Lane being on time for it to happen!

The whole subject of short trains is one that could occupy a book and far too complex to elaborate here.

We often talk about "the good old days" but in reality I often wonder how well it really did work, especially in the event of service disruption. OK, there may not have been so many failures then, but there were some, along with persons under trains, etc., all causing disruption of varying degrees.

Certainly with today's traffic off peak, short trains are not in the equation.

In the 1950s and 60s R stock uncoupled at Whitechapel. The H&C northern terminal platform (as was) during the day between peaks usually had TWO eastbound 2 car sets beyond the eastbound end of the platform down to the buffere spur.

the two cars were 226xx + 235xx, and added to a 211xx, 232xx, 233xx, 234xx, 235xx, 226xx six car formation to make an eight car set in rush hours.

Well said! Hassan 16332

trivran asks: "I think a number of threads discuss Chesham-Ricky-Watford. It might promote a new service pattern, but just who wants it?"

This is a thread about short trains, and my view is that if a Chesham-Ricky-Watford service were to be started, that woud solve the Chesham service issue, and could be run with a dedicated 4 car train service that actually needn't be the most modern stock. Who wants it? Well, in the 60s there was said to be no possibility of re-opening the W.L.L. because nobody wanted it, and similarly in the 50s people said there would be no Thameslink type service because "there was no demand". The same applies here. and a FOUR car Chesham-Ricky-Watford would negate and futher ideas for interfering with the Amersham service. Unfortunately, forward thinking often takes too many years to come to fruition in this country. Then, as is nearly always the case, someone will say "We underestimated the demand"

What about D Stock Double-enders?

Anything is better than no service.

Problem with Chesham is that its outside GLC, and a Chesham = Watford service, needs both Herts and Bucks County councils to get involved AND agree (little historical precedent for that). They might say let Amersham service run as normal and give Chesham - Watford to Chiltern who could run it with 2 car units - shorter than anything on L T since the South Acton shuttle ended.. The western's service out of Paddington to Greenford is always a 2 car unit, so does Chesham need as much as a 4 car? Lots of issues COULD get sorted with some joined up thinking from NOT the sort of people who planned the southern end of the M1 with just 2 lanes each way, and the same people who closed the West Draton to Staines railway along the back of Heathrow in order to build the M25 on it. We need planners who can think ahead - an ability always lacking with transport planners in this country.

I know many people that use Chesham -> London services.
I don't know *any* that are crying out for a Chesham -> Watford service.
I understand that this doesn't represent either a useful sample, or a "what if it was available" viewpoint,
but I suspect there would be a an outcry against it if it reduced the London bound service (which it would, given the single line).

The branch has a max speed of 35mph. The best solution, IMHO, wouldn't be an increase in linespeed but construction of a loop somewhere to improve reliability.

WCML diversions using the Croxley link probably wouldn't happen since Voyagers, which were used during the WCML blockade in 08, can't be fitted with tripcocks, due to their bogies. Chiltern Class 172s use the same bogies and thus can't operate on the Met.

Back on topic, if there were three through platforms at Chalfont & Latimer, 4 car operation might come in hand, where the 8 car train from London is split, with one 4 car unit going to Amersham, whilst the other goes to Chesham. This would reduce the Met service to 2tph for stations from Rickmansworth, but would allow an extra 2tph Chilterns to Aylesbury to operate.
However, in most cases the operational disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

The reasons for abandoning uncoupling in the early 1960s were driven by staff shortages. Also, the cost of providing crews compared with the costs saved by reducing train lengths were only marginally lower. Then there was the disruption factor. If anything went wrong with the service, you could (and did) end up with a 4-car arriving somewhere without its partner, so it would have to go into the peak as a short train. Not popular with the punters.

We also used to get trouble with the couplers from time to time. I can remember trying to couple an A Stock at Watford. The coupling engine just wouldn't turn. We had to uncouple, recouple, uncouple, recouple....you can imagine the language! We did it in the end but we were late leaving.

Finally, as reganorak says, the off-peak traffic nowadays is too heavy to permit short trains.

Although that may have been a consideration 25 double enders wouldn't have been built just for that branch.

The 1973 stock had to be coupled "A" to "D" so a double ended unit would be necessary to prevent loss of an entire train during maintenance of one unit.

@ mjrt - need it really cost more?? If the stock already exists, and is already used on the Chesham??

I think it could actually save on ordering 2 x new 8 car units, IF these 4 car sets are dedicated only to be used Chesham - Watford and nowhere else. What modifications would be needed if the stock is already running on that line?? Hardly onerous work for otherwise redundant stock that would otherwise be scrapped and new 8 car trains being purchased in order to run a service to Chesham. It might also prove that a Chesham - Watford would be more popular than many people think and 2 x current units run as 4 car units would provide a brilliant peak service. Nothing is known for sure until its tried, but with railways, there always seems to be a fear of trying.

knap, of course you are right. But it seems to me that the apparatchiks who are responsible for so many "plans" going wrong or over buget are not prepared to TRY something new here. All we get is reasons "WHY NOT" and never reasons "WHY". To my simple mind, this seems a simple thing to have at least tried. Frankly, in my mind, the WLL (re-)opened 30 years too late because nobody was prepared to try.