Met to High Wycombe

Must admit that's a new one on me. Apart from Hughenden valley I don't see how they could even have contemplated it from Missenden.

I'd have thought Great Missenden - High Wycombe by train would require a lot of tunneling as I'd have thought it was too hilly to do anything else... even via Prestwood and Great Kingshill is a bit on the hilly side to Wycombe.

I can't think of any route between the two that I know of that wouldn't involve hills.

That's a good point. I wonder how many railway schemes in the past have been wanted by the customers, the company agrees but then proposes the worst option of carry out the scheme just so they have an excuse as to not doing it ;D

There was a scheme to extend the Met from Uxbridge round to Harefield too!

High Wycombe (despite it's name) is situated at the bottom of a steep sided, narrow, valley. There is certainly no easy way in for any new surface railway.

The Chiltern service from Wycombe to Marylebone is reasobaly fast ,frequent and pricey. Can't see many people using the Picc or the Met if they served Wycombe, in preference, especially as the Met from Amersham is now slower than it was. Would like to see a line from Hazlemere down to Wycombe - probably need to be a rack.

Of course, extending the Central from West Ruislip to Wycombe would be doable, and would have been the natural follow on from extending to Denham as was planned at one stage. But it would be pointless, and if TFL was forced to choose between extending the Central to Wycombe (Bucks) and Uxbridge (Greater London), I know which I'd bet on!

@ londonstuff

Thank you

Some schemes are "doable" and all of them worthy of further discussion and investigation. There were some very good "Northern Heights" ideas just a few days ago.

But unfortunately some other schemes are no more than manuscript lines drawn on tube maps and are simply not achievable. IMHO these devalue the 'doable' ones which are posted on here.

Of course, everyone is entitled to post ideas on the RIPAS board, but it might be an idea to consider the practicality and cost of some of the schemes before posting. Similarly, local geographic knowledge would also be an asset as so many times it is obvious that some schemes fail to take things such as rivers and valleys into account.

My comment was specifically on the suggestion that the Picc needs to concentrate on Heathrow.


A different problem entirely. Trains off the South Harrow line would have to be truncated at Ruislip/Rayners to make way for the proposed Central Line service to Uxbridge, but it makes no difference whether those truncayted services have come from Cockfosters or Upminster.


Why would diversion to Rayners Lane instead of Ealing Broadway prevent District Line trains calling at Chiswick Park? I only proposed Acton Town as the end of the shuttle because connections to the Picadilly are available there and there is no turnback facility at Ealing Common. No reason in principle why the shuttle couldn't run further east: Turnham Green for example (or South Acton if you want to get nostalgic).


I doubt they'd welcome the idea with open arms, but it's hardly the end of civilisation as we know it. How did Mill Hill East passengers react when their off-peak service became a shuttle? How do you think Morden - Charing Cross passengers like the proposed Northern Line extension plans? And I can't imagine Clapham High Street- Victoria or Denmark Hill- London Bridge regulars are looking forward to Sunday week!
I expect some EBdy passengers would use Ealing Common or North Ealing instead, some would use the shuttle, some would switch to the Central Line, some would use the E3 bus, and in due course some would use their shiny new Crossrail service.
How many Ealing Broadway passengers already switch to the Piccy at Acton Town anyway?

If you must go to High Wycombe, why not just extend the Central line as there are two little holes in W Ruislip bridge just waiting to be used.

That has been mentioned before, somewhere, as being indeed the case.