Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 5, 2018 0:14:11 GMT
What was the reason why the Jubilee took over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo rather than the Harrow branch?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 5, 2018 8:30:13 GMT
What was the reason why the Jubilee took over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo rather than the Harrow branch? Difficulty in reversing at Harrow? |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 5, 2018 9:09:03 GMT
I think it was also were the future traffic was going to develop. The LPTB’s Engineering committee did look at extending the line northwards to meet up with the Northern Heights as Elstree South and onwards to Bushey, by 1936 this was revised to Elstree. Even though these proposals weren’t included in the props a postal for the new works programme, the potential growth of suburban traffic at the Mets extremities probably meant that it was easier to isolate the quieter less established routes whilst simultaneously getting rid of the conflicting movements around Wembley not to mention the chronic congestion between the Subsurface tunnels on the way down to Baker St.
LPTB’s treatment of the Met as being more of a suburban railway probably aided their decision given that the Mets rampant suburbanisation of the medieval fields of Middlesex was creating more demand whilst it was apt for the comparatively new Bakerloo to try and develop its own traffic on this new branch.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 5, 2018 10:07:38 GMT
I meant why was it decided in the late 60s/early 70s that the Bakerloo would retain the branch via Paddington to Queen's Park, Harrow and Watford and the new Fleet line would take over the branch via Wembley to Stanmore, rather than vice versa (i.e. Bakerloo to Stanmore, Fleet/Jubilee to Harrow)?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 5, 2018 10:24:44 GMT
Ah, sorry for lengthy misunderstanding above. The Watford branch was generating the bulk of the lines traffic and was also creating the more worrying levels of over crowding with a maximum 4min frequency serving Paddington which was far from adequate.
The Jubilees course through Bond Street and Green Park was aimed at taking traffic away from the Bakerloo whilst ultimately creating a new route in itself something which it has done with great effect. The then Fleet line was then supposed to run under the Strand towards the City which would of course generate its own substantial traffic so each would see an improvement with the Bakerloo able to accommodate the bulk of its traffic with fewer displaced journeys whilst the Fleet/Jubilee would be free to bend which ever way planners wanted given the lines initially light traffic which ultimately proved extremely useful as the Jubilee Line
Extension took a very different course from original plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 5, 2018 10:26:25 GMT
It may have been because it was seen as desirable to have two lines of similar length (Watford to Elephant and Stanmore to Lewisham, as then planned) rather than one very long one and one very short one.
Or because maintaining the Paddington-Waterloo link was seen as important.
Or because of the available depot facilities (cf the constraints on the Northern Line split)
But, looking at the layout of Baker Street on Carto Metro, I suspect it's because it would have been very difficult to do it the other way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 13:20:28 GMT
Stanmore branch was a later addition to Bakerloo - I guess it made sense to separate that, as opposed to meddling with the original line.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Nov 5, 2018 16:39:10 GMT
Is it possible they wanted the "new" line to be operationally separate from other lines such as the Watford DC branch?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 6, 2018 12:56:39 GMT
Probably a little of all the above. Depot space, track positioning at Baker Street, line length and last in first out probably had something to do with it.
The Stanmore v Harrow-on-the-Hill debate is interesting in its own right too!
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Nov 12, 2018 16:09:25 GMT
The Stanmore v Harrow-on-the-Hill debate is interesting in its own right too! One I'm very interested in hearing more about please... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 12, 2018 18:46:16 GMT
The Stanmore v Harrow-on-the-Hill debate is interesting in its own right too! One I'm very interested in hearing more about please... 
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 12, 2018 20:32:45 GMT
Yes but the Bakerloo should never have reached Stanmore in the first place! The Met was going to solve the overcrowded tracks between Baker St and Finchley Road by building a new deep level tube line suitable for its full size trains between a junction north of Kilburn & Brondesbury station and (near to) Edgware Road station. This route would have run below Kilburn High Street, Maida Vale and Edgware Road with new stations at Quex Road, Kilburn Park Road and Clifton Road. The plan was thwarted in 1925 when the Ministry of Transport introduced a rule requiring a means of exit in an emergency at the ends of trains running in deep level tube tunnels. The Met had intended to use its existing compartment trains on services through the new tunnels. This is explains why Edgware Road station was rebuilt with four platforms and train destination indicators that included never-used stations such as Verney Junction and Uxbridge! I suppose that with hindsight they should have built the new tunnels plus new trains - which would have been restricted to the Stanmore route. But of course from their point of view such trains would not have been suitable for services serving the prestigious city of St Albans... which their longer term plans had in mind as a destination for which Stanmore was a mere stepping stone. As an aside, this also explains why the P89 trains were not supposed to use the DLR Bank extension (P86 also did not meet fire safety requirements for such tunnels), why the Class 710's cannot serve the East London Line and why Class 717 trains do not have same front as the class 700's. EDIT: Consecutive posts merged.This link leads to a Wikipedia image showing the planned new route. It will not show as an image, so I am just supply a link.
Simon |
|
