|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 3, 2006 17:11:37 GMT
Should Amersham and Chesham be on the London underground when they are both out in Buckinghamshire. Shouldn't it surley be put on to national rail. unless tfl want to rename the London Underground the London and South East England underground or that part of Buckinghamshire would have to be turned in to London but that wouldn't be particualy sensible. The only reasen why it is in use as a tube staion is because of the comunity around those areas wanting to go in ton central London for Buissness or other reasons and don't want to pay National rail prices because it is a lot cheaper to use an Oyster card or Daily travel card.But the people from Central London wanting to go to Amersham because of National rail links or buissness in Amersham like relatives would be able to buy a daily travel card or use there oyster card because it is cheaper and if you use the fast trains from Baker street, it may in some cases be quicker depending on National rail route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2006 17:15:48 GMT
You may want to have a look at this similar thread: Click Here |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 3, 2006 20:31:26 GMT
Should Amersham and Chesham be on the London underground when they are both out in Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey (I'm bound to have missed one - cue the bright spark). If LU shaved their lines away from those counties, we wouldn't have much more than the central area. I live in North Hertfordshire and as far as I know, despite the invasion of the Met, Piccadilly and Northern a few years back, the county never became London. |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Aug 3, 2006 21:05:40 GMT
Here cometh the bright spark - you forgot the (old) county of London, in existence from 1889 to 1965. Plus, with the East London section of the Metropolitan line, you could throw Kent (well pre-1965!) into the mix as well. Jamie - there's plenty of literature out there explaining the reasons for the Met's incursion into the Home Counties. Go fill your boots.  THC |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 3, 2006 21:56:05 GMT
Here cometh the bright spark - you forgot the (old) county of London, in existence from 1889 to 1965. Plus, with the East London section of the Metropolitan line, you could throw Kent (well pre-1965!) into the mix as well. Jamie - there's plenty of literature out there explaining the reasons for the Met's incursion into the Home Counties. Go fill your boots. the ELL didn't go into administrative Kent after 1889 - it was in the County of London (and only then at New Cross/New X Gate). Of course, it still goes into Kent, as no county act has removed the traditional counties (and specifically say that they don't), just changed the administrative ones. Seeing as Middlesex and Surrey are home counties, as are Bucks, Herts, Essex and Kent, very little of the tube is outside the Home Counties, ok quite a bit more if you take the County of London as not being part of the home counties, but most lines (ELL and W&C excepted) go there. I can't think of a line that doesn't enter Middlesex, other than the W&C - perhaps we should call it the Middlesex Underground. Several lines don't go to London - Victoria, Piccadilly, Bakerloo, ELL and Northern (CX branch). Counties are a mess, adminstrative counties should have been given a different name when things like "Greater London" and "Humberside" were created. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 4, 2006 9:00:34 GMT
So, even with me now living in the Home Counties of Londonshire, and even if Amersham is in the county of South Middlelandshire, let's keep the underground's one true railway stomping up there ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2006 10:32:25 GMT
So, even with me now living in the Home Counties of Londonshire, and even if Amersham is in the county of South Middlelandshire, let's keep the underground's one true railway stomping up there ;D Too right, I dont want to work for network rail!  |
|
