'New Works' - why the choice?

why epping, and not shenfield is another question, can still serve part of the fairlop loop (say Ilford-Woodford). That would have also had the bonus of fast trains from the more major stations, avoiding the problem of Epping trains being so far out.

I'm guessing that the Epping line wasn't electrified, whereas the others (eg Chingford) were.

You would have also thought that some take overs south of the river would have been asked for, but I guess the Southern Region weren't going to give up anything.

I'm fairly suprised that a second route to Uxbridge (other than via the Uxbridge road tube) wasn't planned, either from West Ruislip/Denham area, or from the GWML - it's odd that they didn't extend the SSLs (and in fact, cut back the Met line to Aylesbury) in the 30s - they would have been the trains to take to the outer regions.

Another query from around that time - why does the district take the slow lines? surely the bigger trains would be better for longer distances (I know they joint ran when the Picc was extended) so why did the Piccadilly steal the fast lines and the longer branches? Surely Richmond, Northfields and Ealing Broadway with the District serving Hounslow and Harrow would have made more sense, or is this Richmond District users being a powerful lobby back then as well as now (stopping crossrail going there).

As for Denham, there would have been a lot of housing there if the central went there - seriously - look at how much post-30s (and 30s themselves) houses there are in Amersham, Chesham, Epping and so on (partly as the green belt was designed to allow growth there). In fact, even if there hadn't been the central line, it would be a fair size - it's only not as there's the green belt hemming it in.

Agreed. A loop from the GWML passing through Uxbridge (completing their intended connection to their other branch from the joint GWR/GCR line) could have been quite good, giving the central another loop at the western end (Ealing Broadway to W.Ruislip via Uxbridge) to complement the one at the eastern end. Alternatively, looking at a map, a connection between Heathrow and Feltham could let district services run in a loop from Richmond to Ealing Broadway, eliminating the need for a special Heathrow connect service.



Again, agreed. Having the larger trains stop all stations seems to make sense (larger capacity), but the comfort of the extra space is better used on passengers travelling for longer on express services surely?



If you want to see what effect the tube and the tube alone can have on virgin farmland, look no further than Golder's green to Edgware - prime farmland until on a few years after the arrival of the tube. Denham would have had even more pressure had the connection in Uxbridge come to pass as it would have much more local traffic passing through it.

I'm a big advocate of radial routes, and western greater London was one of the few places where they actually managed to get partially built...only to be squandered in 20th century cutbacks.

Actually Chingford & Enfield Town services weren't electrified until 1960.

(back on topic) My point exactly. Epping, Enfield Town and Chingford were all self-contained branches of the GER. So why just the one?? Epping seems the least logical of the three.

The Edgware/Barnet/Alex Palace line was an obvious one: it was difficult to work with steam because of the gradients, and LT had lines reasonably close at Highgate (Archway) and Finsbury Park (GNCR). I suspect that the choice of the Epping line came about in some horse-trading between LNER and LPTB.

LT might have been less keen to take the Epping line if it had known that a Green Belt would be declared around London in the late 1940s. It was this that killed the Central beyond W Ruislip and the Northern beyond Edgware.

The FinCen-MHE section was electrified in 1941 mainly because of pressure on LT to serve the barracks at MHE. Without this, it is probable that the whole of the FinCen-Edgware line would have been abandoned.

In my opinion the "New Works Programme" was the best that could be planned at the time.It is unfortunate that the whole programme was not completed due to the war, the Green Belt and the post-war economic situation.
The Minister of Transport 'requested' the planners to pay particular attention to N and NE London. North Ilford passengers had been agitating for a line along Eastern Av. for some time and there was pressure for the Archway Line to be extended to Highgate.
Diverting the Barnet Line traffic to Archway and Alexandra Palace branch traffic to join the Northern City Line at Drayton Park would ease congestion between Finsbury Park and Kings X.
Diverting the Ongar and Hainault lines traffic to the Central at Leyton freed the lines from Ilford and Stratford into Liverpool St including the crossing of the Main lines by Ongar trains to Fenchurch St. and the East side of Liverpol St. Interchange at Stratford with the Shenfield Electrics and at Mile End gave additional routes to GE passengers.
The LPTB may have found itself 'saddled' with Workmans and Rush hour traffic from Leyton,etc. but probably made up for it by the Pooling of Receipts, the conversion to Trolleybuses and the rebuilding of other stations.
The LNER had more paths for its more lucrative outer suburban trains