What if the Metropolitan Line Wasn't an Underground Line?

[@BirklandsRail]

I often wonder what would have happened if Railtrack’s bid to take on the subsurface lines and incorporate them into the National Rail network had come to fruition. This is my Roman Empire.

[@Tevildo]

We'd still have plenty of NSE signage in London, not just at Essex Road, for starters.

[@glynwelshkarelian3489]

Have you got a link to this? I think I remember this as a story; but google just offers me unrelated bagwash.

[@paulhollis8879]

Railtrack incorporating the SSL lines? First I’ve heard of that.

[@raakone]

@@paulhollis8879 when the LU decided to have private infrastructure management companies, originally the SSL would have gone to Railtrack, and there’s possibly be Tokyo-style interlining (more Underground trains running onto suburban lines, and suburban trains running onto Underground lines)

[@paulhollis8879]

@@raakoneI don’t think that all. I worked for LU’s infrastructure companies in Metronet and Tube Lines and conversion of SSL lines were never discussed. Where did you get info that Railtrack and LU discussed this?

[@peabody1976]

I feel as though there should be a drinking game every time Yerkes's portrait or the classic "Metropolitan steam train in tunnel" painting is shared, we take a shot. What's this? Both here? 🙂 I really enjoyed this history of "what if...?", Jago.

[@Clavichordist]

Sounds like fun but I watch Jago's videos quite early in my day. LOL

[@adamhenley8295]

Some of Jago’s former videos might kill you on that basis 😂

[@PeterGaunt]

@@Clavichordist Then you'd just be pissed in the morning and afternoon!

[@colinbaldwin3833]

Cheers

[@stevem.1853]

I think that Yerkes is such a recurring character that he needs his own theme song to play whenever he shows up!

[@jacksonmacmanus1001]

Charles Tyson Yerkes & Franck Pick are quickly becoming so common on this channel, they might had well be classed as Co-Hosts

[@paulsengupta971]

If they wanted stock, they could have run a line to the OXO tower.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

😀 Indeed, which would have fascinated Cubist fans . . . 🤣!

[@maryapatterson]

Get your coat😂

[@SpiritmanProductions]

Taxi for Paul! 😉

[@keithparker1346]

Very good

[@whyamiwhat]

i feel whats likely is the gwr would have constructed a larger terminal station underground near the city, similar to the farringdon plan, and would have potentially precipitated a sort of London Hauptbahnhof station in the modern era

[@annabelholland]

@ChilternTransportProductions and there would be like five of them will 'central' in it.

[@hairyairey]

Hauptbahnhof just means railway station (if my German is any good). I presume you're referring to Berlin Hauptbahnhof which has a fairly epic size. A bit like Grand Central in Birmingham, there's a railway station in here somewhere! Farringdon is definitely heading that way.

[@hb1338]

@@hairyairey Bahnhof is railway station, Hauptbahnhof is main railway station.

[@whyamiwhat]

@@hairyairey it's common in railway nerd circles to use the German word to refer to having one large central station in a major city as opposed to several smaller ones (not just Berlin but pretty much all major cities in Germany have hauptbahnhofs)

[@MrSmith1984]

I presume that it would link the GWML, ECML & MML with the Brighton Main Line, South East Main Line & Chatham Main Line I suppose?

[@brettpalfrey4665]

"Basically a history of arguments" Sums it all up beautifully! You should be on the telly, Jago! ..and sneaking a quick Yerkes mention in as if we wouldn't notice!!!

[@gracewenzel]

Wahey, I love some speculative-alternate-Tube-history-fiction!

[@jeanbonnefoy1377]

Definitely an interesting prospective parallel universe view. My personal answer would be that the London tube network would look like the Paris metro or Berlin U-Bahn, namely an underground network of mainly underground (and some elevated) narrow loading gauge lines and another (mainly in tunnels inside the city but mainly overground in the suburbs) of railway compatible (and historically originally railway inherited) fast lines like the Paris RER (co-operated by RATP and SNCF) or the Berlin S-Bahn.

[@danieleyre8913]

The 4 subsurface lines of the London Underground really function more like a continental S-Bahn than like bonafide metro lines. It would make sense to group them with the overground (and integrate them more). But of course; that might be too much change and unfamiliarity for Londoners.

[@Sarahbryson321]

It might’ve connected to the WCML at some point, compressed into the LMS, nationalised by BR, then franchised in the 1990s. Electrostars on the met line, perhaps?

[@memediatek]

Tbf the S stock are remarkably similar to the Electrostar family

[@Themclachlans]

Would Metroland be a thing? What would the Great Central have done? Where would I have lived if not in Croxley? Too many questions!

[@MrSmith1984]

I would imagine that the current London to Aylesbury Line would have ended up as a GWML Branch. Wonder if it would mean that the GWML would be 6/8-Track in parts...

[@iankemp1131]

The GWR weren't very suburban minded. So probably no Metro-Land, and quite a few of the Met branches to Uxbridge, Aylesbury/Chesham and Watford/Croxley might not have existed. The Great Central would probably have stayed the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire because there would have been no southern partner for Watkin to gain control of and get access to London. It might not have got further south than Mansfield or Nottingham.

[@howie8582]

Hi Jago, not sure if you read these comments. Anyway when I was a boy I was brought up near what is now Brent Cross station. I was always struck by its elegance, even as a young boy. I remember the public phone in the booking hall with its button A and button B and some really old rolling stock including a tube train with a separate loco engine and carriages with louvred slats and oval windows. Anyway the purpose of my comment is to say the station is a 100 years old next month. Not sure if there is a video there. Thanks,

[@captainjoshuagleiberman2778]

You have not mentioned Yerkies in awhile. I have luckily restocked my rum ration so I am ready for the Yerkies drinking game. 🙂

[@LondonTransport466]

This is the kind of alternate history I can get behind!

[@kgbgb3663]

Extremely interesting alternative history, and quite plausible and logical! While it's quite reasonable to think that in this alternative history the GWR would have extended the Met to Whitechapel to reach the East London, it wouldn't really have been necessary -- the companies they owned or part-owned were already connected by running rights through Liverpool Street mainline station, where the westernmost platforms were connected both to the Met and to the EL.

[@katrinabryce]

Another alternative history scenario is that when the railway lines were grouped into the Big Four, the Metropolitan Railway was grouped with one of them, in which case it would most likely have been LNER, because they got the routes from Marylebone which share a lot of track with the Metropolitan Line.

[@martinhonor3483]

Somewhere I saw speculation of there being six, not four. companies after Grouping; with the Scottish railways being a separate group and the sixth taking in the Great Central and Metropolitan plus other others, maybe the Midland to serve central England.

[@katrinabryce]

@ChilternTransportProductions Yes.

[@katrinabryce]

@ChilternTransportProductions Wales wasn't really considered a separate country back then. It didn't get a capital city until 1955.

[@hb1338]

@@katrinabryce Wales has been a principality for nearly 750 years.

[@katrinabryce]

@@hb1338 As far as I can gather, it was separate from England in much the same way Cornwall is now.

[@LunaDragofelis]

Continuing the speculation, the subsurface lines would've been absorbed into British Rail, and probably considered an S-Bahn type service like the Overground, Thameslink or Crossrail today.

[@viridimontes]

My hot take: Earl’s Court station would have been much less complicated. Heathrow rail service would have been mainline instead of on the Picc.

[@trevorelliston1]

I have thought for a long time the Heathrow tunnels from Hounslow should have been bored to 16 or 18 feet, not the 12 of the Tube, so they could take sub-surface stock, possibly on a track sharing basis with Piccadilly trains as happens from Rayners Lane to Uxbridge. That would open up many Connection possibilities.

[@englishciderlover7347]

@@trevorelliston1 The larger stock going to/from Heathrow would also be useful for people with luggage. However, the Piccadilly tunnels in central and north London can't fit larger rolling stock.

[@trevorelliston1]

@@englishciderlover7347 indeed but the line to Hounslow was built by and still can be connected to the District line at Acton Town, indeed the District ran to Hounslow along side Piccadilly trains with an infrequent weekend service until 1964. What I envisage would be subsurface stock taking the district tracks on from Acton Town and then eg looping round the circle or heading on to Upminster. In theory a train could e.g, run from Amersham via Aldgate to Heathrow.

[@englishciderlover7347]

@@trevorelliston1 Of course. I should have remembered, considering how many times I've ridden the Pic from Heathrow to central London. However, once you get to central London, you have the problem of travelling on the small rolling stock for most lines inside the Circle line.

[@trevorelliston1]

@@englishciderlover7347 you have that anyway. However the chances are that fewer people would need to change, particularly if heading to the City. Another possibility could have been running the Heathrow express through Paddington to the City. The GWR had passenger services doing this from Windsor until 1940 and ran freight to Smithfield’s to the early 60’s.

[@djsmeguk]

It's been a while since a Yerkes reference. I've been getting thirsty 😂

[@trevorelliston1]

I wondered about such matters myself…I understand the MET tried to get itself bought out by either the GWR or LNER in 1933 to prevent being absorbed by the LPTB but with no joy. There are otherwise so many stories of what could have been if the many connections between the MET and District, on the one hand, and the GWR, GNR, GER, LT&S, WLR, SE&CR, LBSCR, and LSWR on the other had all been maintained.

[@MervynPartin]

The GWR was well off and might have done that if it had the inclination, but the LNER was rather short of money, even if it had the inclination to do it. The GWR might have objected to any Westward extensions by the LNER, however, so that may have stopped many expansion plans.

[@1258-Eckhart]

Very enjoyable indeed, Jago! I suspect that had the GWR played its cards right and not flounced out of the Metropolitan cooperation in high dudgeon, having first gathered up all its toys, we would not today have Crossrail. The way you take over companies is by making them more and more dependent on you (here, on your rolling stock) until with a little skullduggery early in the morning at the Stock Exchange, ownership glides into your hands. Crossrail would then already have been realised, the Victorians had even built the curves from Moorgate up into Liverpool Street in 1875, giving the GWR the possibility of services from Great Yarmouth to Penzance, or more lucratively, Harwich Docks to Bristol Docks. The Widened Lines may even be carrying freights to this day instead of/as well as the North London Line. And Reading to Colchester straight through would already for a long time have been a doddle.

[@Punnery]

I thought about that Liverpool Street connection, too. Going via Aldgate East and St.Mary's Curve onto the East London Line might have been an interesting idea as well... though eventually they would have had to do something to ease congestion and do a better job dealing with the smoke.

[@1258-Eckhart]

Yeah, wow, GWR trains in Ramsgate! The Victorians were very inventive and it wouldn't have taken much for them to install a steam-powered forced ventilation system to expel the smoke (and enable more trains). But they were also highly tolerant of pollution and river contamination, and were in fact vicariously rescued out of their filth by the unexpected growth of electric traction. The present government has still not realised that electric traction is a thing - I think the two (then and now) are related. @@Punnery

[@DoubleD20s]

Whenever Yerkes appears, he should have a theme tune. I suggest Electric Six - _Danger High Voltage_ for this purpose. Additionally, whenever that painting of the steam train in the tunnel appears - such as at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="67">1:07</a> - Edward White's _Puffin' Billy_ would fit the bill.

[@metropod]

Personally, I think a “Waterloo and City” situation would have occurred at some point, possibly around the formation of British Rail. BR might have not wanted to get involved in operationing that much of London’s urban transit network and may have given some percentage of control over to whatever version of TfL’s former incarnations was around to take over.

[@KevinTheCaravanner]

Hooray, Yerkes is back. He’s been absent for too long. I’ve missed him.

[@bigaspidistra]

The GWR had a lot on its plate through the 1870s, not least of which the start of the quadrupling of the main line, as well as absorbing companies in the South West. They did though use running right agreements to sort of compete with the growing Met/District system, such as the Middle Circle as well as a long-winded service from Victoria which used the West London Line to meet the GWR main line, terminating at Southall to connect into Windsor and Oxford services.

[@wasmic5z]

It's never too late to make the Met stop being an Underground line! My personal (probably silly) idea would be to turn the Metropolitan Line into a crossrail-like line, running like it does today north/west of Baker Street, but being funneled into a new dedicated tunnel into and under central London, before being connected up with whatever suburban line(s) in Southeast London is most desperately in need of more capacity. This way, it would be possible to expand direct service into the poorly-served Southeast. It would be possible to run all Met trains into the center rather than having some terminate at Baker Street. A new cross-London connection would be established. And finally, it would be possible to double the frequency on the Hammersmith and City line, and perhaps also on the Circle Line depending on how much congestion the District ends up with. Oh, and re-extend the Met to Aylesbury while at it, with half-hourly fast trains running all the way (like on the Liz to Reading).

[@jackmartinleith]

Or, plan B, reinstate St Mary's Curve.

[@kenmorris100]

I enjoyed your speculation Jago. I am fortunate to own a copy of both the North Metropolitan Bill and the subsequent Act incorporating the "Metropolitan" railway. It makes for interesting reading including all connections to the railways forced to terminate along New Road now known as Euston Road. Fortunately possibly to the chagrin of the GWR it had to be built as a dual gauge railway to accommodate these other railways. Thus when they took away their 7ft and a quarter inch rolling stock the Metropolitan were able to borrow and then procure stock using standard gauge track. One consequence of the GWR influence can be easily seen at Baker Street with the extra width of the tunnels. The GWR/Western Region did run freight trains over the Metropolitan to Smithfield market. A number of condensing panier tank locos at Old Oak Common operated these trains to the shock of unknowing passengers waiting on the platforms for the next train!

[@ccityplanner1217]

Here's the service I expect we'd have: Metropolitan line (operated by British Rail similar to the Glasgow underground): 6tph Moorgate - Heathrow Airport. 3tph Moorgate - Uxbridge loop, out via West Drayton, return via Greenford. 3tph Moorgate - Uxbridge loop, out via Greenford, return via West Drayton. 6tph Hammersmith - New Cross 6tph Hammersmith - New Cross Gate District Line of the Underground: 6tph Upminster - Richmond 6tph Upminster - Putney Bridge 6tph Barking - Wimbledon 6tph Mansion House - Greenford, over a link from North Ealing via Ealing Broadway to take over the West Ealing - Greenford branch as part of the New Works programme.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I assume you’re referring to the “low level trains” rather than the Subway? (Even though SPT ran both for a time.)

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@kaitlyn__L : The North Clyde and Central lines.

[@nixcails]

Interesting. My personal theory is IF the GWR and Metropolitan line had been one we'd probably have ended up with more lines akin to the Elizabeth Line or the Paris RER with trains either starting subsurface or on viaducts at one side of the city connecting to mainlines so Reading to Southend/Barking or Leamington Spa/Banbury via Aylesbury to New Cross or Croydon/Brighton. Using full sized electrified stock. As it stands we have what we have the mash up of Tube, Subsurface (I call these Metros to homage the Metropolitan Line), London Overground, Thameslink and Elizabeth Line. Along with standard commuter and regional trains.

[@nielspemberton59]

Yes, it could have been acquired by the RATP Paris Transit Company, converted to the Berne Loading Gauge , then re-electrified at 1500 volts DC, overhead wire, then extended at the east end to Fenchurch Street station - London Bridge Station - then under Roads A2, A207, A2500 to Sheres Green then along A2 to Rochester and Chatham. Then extended at the West End ( 1. Uxbridge - Slough - Windsor.2. Croxley Junction - Croxley Green - Watford Junction 3. Amersham- Aylesbury - Quainton - Brackley - Woodford & Hinton- Rugby. 4. Quainton - Verney -Bletchley- Milton Keynes. 4. Woodford & Hinton - Stratford Upon Avon- Redditch. ) It would be a part of London Transport. As in the Paris area, there would be Mission codes.

[@PenryMMJ]

Fantastic stuff, and breeding ground for all sorts of wild, whimsical speculation about alternative transport systems, that never existed and will never exist. Challenge accepted. Instead of bringing all the regional commuter lines into terminus stations on the edge of the city, they could all have entered tunnels similar to the Elizabeth line. Then instead of transferring from the regional train onto the tube, commuters would simply alight from their train at an underground station somewhere closer to where they actually want to be (or at least, where there employers want them to be).

[@noahshoesmith4106]

Another great video by the great Jago!!

[@riggerthegeek]

Interesting thought. It certainly seems plausible if not necessarily likely. One handy thing of note - as the Northern Line is a deep level tube, in this hypothetical world we'd still be able to play Mornington Crescent, albeit in reduced form.

[@gregoryclark8217]

You can try out the reduced version of Mornington Crescent if you want to, just use the 1947 Austerity Rule Book!

[@riggerthegeek]

@@gregoryclark8217 I can't believe I forgot about that variation, but how else did Dr Beeching get his interest in railways?

[@baystated]

Imagine a reversed parallel universe where Jago theorizes that the Met would have become an Underground line if they hadn't been taken over by the GWR.

[@PokhrajRoy.]

Quote of the Day: “The history of railways in the 19th Century is basically a history of arguments.”

[@aixtom979]

That's the "What If" discussion that I really like. A lot of people I encounter go "It would be unlikely because of A, B, C", and I could strangle them in that moment, because no matter how unlikely something might have been, it is great fun to imagine what could have been if some little detail had gone the other way. 😆

[@PokhrajRoy.]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="410">6:50</a> Friend of the channel, Mr. Yerkes.

[@tjmfarming9584]

Question is: if the GWR did take over the met, would we still have designs such as the A, E, and K classes of steam locomotives the Met was known for? Or would the GWR have used the likes of their small and larger Prarie locos? I’d imagine if we still had those Met designs constructed and operated under the GWR they’d have either been swindonised or just painted in GWR green… Hey that’s not a bad fictional concept actually, perhaps when I get my laptop fixed I can have a go at making such engines in Trainz…

[@lordmuntague]

"The other kind of stock." Back to drinking gravy again Jago? Aye, me too...

[@roberthuron9160]

Alternative histories are always interesting! Many sci-fi stories have been written on this topic,and Harry Turtledove's Alternative Civil War history is a multivolume mind stretching tour-de- force! Any way that's only one of many! Thank you for a different take on the Underground! Jago,strikes again!! Thank you 😇 😊!!

[@pacerclara]

I definitely agree with your point about whether we would have considered the subsurface railways as "Underground" lines, Glasgow has a pair of subsurface railway lines that operate as mainline railways and nobody really considers them as part of the Subway

[@WolfmanWoody]

I'm glad you understand all the goings on in the past, baffles me. 🤔☹

[@harstan7333]

Despite your well-founded suggestion of animosity between the GWR and LSWR, the GWR did run to Richmond (via the connection between the Met and LSWR through Hammersmith Grove Road). There was briefly a GWR service in 1870, which resumed as a shared Met-GWR service between 1894 and 1910.

[@Blade_Daddy]

I like your speculations.

[@ModernHistory4U]

Hi Jago, great video as always. I guess in some ways it would be similar to Germany with their S-Bahn and U-Bahns where the S-Bahn acts similar to the overground and U-Bahn is more like a metro service. Either ways it’s a cool thought

[@Trockenshampooleopard]

Long story short, London might have ended up with an S-Bahn and an U-Bahn network, both running tunnels through the city centre but one having slightly larger trains in s different colour.

[@norbitonflyer5625]

Without the revenue stream from the District, Yerkes could not have funded the construction of his Deep Level Tubes and we wlould have ended up with just the City & South London, the Drain, and the Central. In 1923 the Met managed to persuade the Government it was an urban Metro like the UERL, the Glasgow Subway or the Liverpool Overhead Railway, in order to avoid being absorbed into one of the "Big Four" (probably the LNER because of the shared track with the Great Central). But in 1933 it tried unsuccessfully to argue the opposite, to avoid being absorbed into London Transport. The arguament was possible either way - its services shared more track with the LNER than with the District - all the way out to Aylesbury - but in terms of the number of services it was more tightly connected to the District.

[@seanbonella]

Great again JH

[@RogersRamblings]

Some excellent and entertaining speculation. To add a bit more to the mix, it should be remembered that the GWR had running powers over the District at one point and the District ran a short - lived service to Windsor over the connection at Ealing Broadway. Thus, even if the Met and the District had remained separate, it's very likely the GWR would have taken both into ownership. The notion that the GWR would have no truck with the railways south of the river should be looked at askance as they operated into the London, Chatham and Dover Railway station at Victoria so serving both Victoria Stations.

[@leesheehan4245]

You do make some fantastic videos. This one will have to be one of my favourites. A lot of what you suggested especially about the possibility, had the GWR done what you proposed they could have done, would have completed was is now The Elizabeth Line. Amazing 👏

[@tsungiraichiramba]

Class Jago

[@JD-gd5cb]

The way I imagine it going down is that the Metropolitan Railway retains it's identity on it's services and ends up using it's square roundel on it's stations and trains, so we end up with 2 competing companies in London the Metropolitan Lines or Met lines and the Underground lines. The latter using its roundel. When they were both nationalised into London Transport the Met stations keep the squaredel as a way of distinguishing the subsurface lines from the deep level lines

[@oliverpiers6603]

Loved this video! Please keep up the “what ifs”

[@annika_panicka]

Additional likes (and plays) for the use of the word "behemoth"👍👍 There's no shortage of 5 pound words on this channel, but that's a favorite of mine.👍

[@PokhrajRoy.]

Today in ‘The British Underground Twilight Zone’…we find out…what if the Metropolitan Line wasn’t an Underground line?

[@jgodfrey546]

Speculative maybe, but also entirely plausible. Interesting Yerkes baby pic, btw

[@mcarp555]

Jago, let me pose another speculative question: What if in the mid-19th Century someone had the idea and the persuasive ability to conceive of not just a single railway, but the entire Underground network and finance/build it from scratch? From your videos, I get the sense that what we think of today as the "Underground" as a whole didn't happen until nationalization in the 1930's. Many stations and routes were built in competition with other companies. But if it had all been planned out as a whole, what would it look like? Obviously they could not have foreseen the many changes in London since then (like Canary Wharf, expansion south of the Thames, etc.), but it might have been easier to add on to an existing network rather than zig and zag. The entire DLR might have been Tube lines, for example. Stations might not have been built next to each other or a two-minute stroll apart, etc. What do you think?

[@ValE-ps9tc]

Guess who I saw at Washington DC's National Portrait Gallery......yep our friend Charles Tyson Yerkes😂. I'd never heard of him before I found your channel.

[@ddewittfulton]

Nice to see "The Yerkster" get a mention. It's been a few episodes. Some people in history cast a long shadow, others just produce shade.

[@Gary0557]

Jago you're getting a bit obsessed with The Metropolitan Line! 😂

[@john1703]

Good to see CTY back in the story. The Mayor of London would have played "fat controller" and we would be where we are anyway.

[@dikfraser]

As I was brought up a stone’s throw from Royal Oak station, your piece on the Metropolitan/GWR history was very meaningful to me. Best regards, - Dik

[@someoneno-one7672]

It’s a very interesting speculation. Together with what is London Overground today the subsurface lines might have formed into something similar to RER system in Paris. The current Circle line might have not come about or come as a loop from the start, while the “true” Tube (the deep lines) could have got their own circle or orbital line instead. The entire “circle” of the existing circle line could have reduced the number of stops forsaking likes of Great Portland Street, St James’s Park, Barbican or Temple, turning into fast tran service through the centre (kind of crossrail), and deep tube lines’ stations would have replaced those on the subsurface lines - as it happens to St John’s Wood or Swiss Cottage. A deep-level wide tunnel branch from Paddington to Whitechapel could have appeared much earlier than Elizabeth line did, and the Thameslink system could have been incorporated into the system.

[@iankemp1131]

I thought this video was actually going to deal with what happened in 1922 and 1933. The Met maybe saw itself more as a longer-distance line than an underground railway. It fought against being rolled into London Transport in 1933. But it also escaped the grouping in 1922 by saying it wasn't a normal railway! Otherwise the LNER might have got it, and then what? Who would own the shared section between Baker Street and Aldgate? What would be prioritised, Circle Line trains or outer-suburban Met trains? Would the Met branch to Watford have been built? An interesting story in itself, and equally fruitful for speculation.

[@iankemp1131]

This all sounds very reasonable and likely. It certainly opens up fascinating speculations on what might have been. Added to those here, how many of the Metropolitan's extension lines would have been built? The GWR was not noted for encouraging suburban traffic, unlike the LSWR and GER. It would not have taken the enterprising approach to Metro-Land housing. Watkin would never have got hold of it, the lines to Harrow, Uxbridge, Watford, Chesham and Aylesbury might not have been built, and the Great Central's London Extension would probably never have happened with no willing southern neighbour to ease its path into London.

[@johnwood2448]

Different track width or gauge was an issue. Brunel wanted to build big but the rest of the rail industry had already standardised their track width. 10 foot wide EuroStar and Orient Express Trains but hey!

[@blameless_hyperborean8638]

There's another question that has sometimes occurred to me. By 1923, the Met had very close links with the Great Central. It seems plausible that it might have been considered for incorporation into the LNER at the Grouping. As the GNR had a big part to play in the Widened Lines, this could have made some sense as a sub-network. Likewise, if the District had not already become part of UERL, it could easily have been absorbed into the Southern, along with their allies in the LSWR.

[@TheRahsoft]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="4">0:04</a> coming into north harrow station

[@mattevans4377]

I feel like Yerkes would be the type of person to just buy the GWR outright if he could.

[@katrinabryce]

He didn't though, either because he couldn't - it was too big, or because it wasn't a giid fit for his plan of an integrated local rail system in London.

[@mattevans4377]

@@katrinabryce Well also, they weren't in his way. If they were, like in this alt history, well just look what he did when others got in his way. I'm not saying he'd succeed, just that he'd make an attempt in this alt timeline.

[@anoniaino]

I was recently thinking about combining the subsurface lines and the overground into one mode. This is a timely and interesting video. Thanks Jago!

[@Andrewjg_89]

The Metropolitan Line will always be a sub-surface tube line on the London Underground. Same with the Hammersmith & City Line, Circle Line and District Line. And the Metropolitan Line would have extended to High Wycombe, Aylesbury and Bicester. Plus with the Bakerloo Line and Piccadilly Line that are deep level tube lines to get new tube stocks in the next couple years.

[@RadioJonophone]

Jago has a lot of points here, he's no sleeper.

[@MarkCarne-hu5xw]

Well, can't see that the GWR would have wanted to extend into Buckinghamshire, and if there was no MET, that would rather have put a spanner in Watkins plans to link Manchester and Paris via London and a Channel tunnel. So no GC London extention, no Metroland, no Betjemen, no electric trains lighted after tea. What have you done Jago! I feel quite numb at the thought of this alternate reality.

[@highpath4776]

Now if only the GWR had the foresight to develop Old Oak ( and see map, its worth a look and talk about )

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

We sort of have this scenario now with Thameslink, it’s the nearest thing we have to a sub surface tube line that’s not owned by TfL

[@isashax]

I like your alternate reality tale from the Tube! Or not the Tube...

[@johnjephcote7636]

The London Transport ex-GWR pannier tanks, working late night permanent way trains over the Met and Distrct right up to 1974 used to give some travellers quite a turn.

[@TravelWithMeGadget]

Can you elaborate?

[@rainyfeathers9148]

They beefed so much everyday was sunday🤣👏🏾

[@user6343]

When I rode the subsurface lines during my stay in London I also had the feeling they would be much better categorized as standard commuter rail lines or like an S-Bahn from the German speaking world which ran occasionally underground and at other times overground. Many stations which are open to the sky made me think of the Lake Zurich left-bank railway line on the short beginning between Zurich's main station and Bahnhof Wollishofen as it runs mostly either entranched (the stations are as well in a trench) or in tunnels

[@sr6424]

Interesting- it goes to Amersham now and originally further North. I believe this was part/of the original GCR.

[@Del_S]

This world may have slowed down Yerkes. But remember the documentary Command and Conquer Red Alert, if you remove one menace, the timeline simply finds a way. So basically there's an alternative universe where Stalin ran a bunch of railways in London for a while.

[@jayfielding1333]

Great video!

[@telhudson863]

So the Met and District are built and run by GWR using broad gauge. The London Central station in Farringdon Street is a broad gauge station that allows narrow gauge on some of its tracks. All of Metroland is broad gauge. You see where I'm going. Is there any possibility the gauge commission would have said, "All the track we use is broad gauge. The rest of the country will just have to follow London's lead."

[@thestargateking]

One other thing to consider is what would happen with crossrail, would it still exist as a “express metro” more literally. Perhaps with overground taking over the subsurface there’s overground from Reading to wherever the overground goes leaving Liverpool street. But then they get the idea for Crossrail but on the reading side the stock goes on the fast line instead going beyond reading. Or they might not even bother and crossrail 2 becomes crossrail 1

[@tehFoxx0rz]

It would have impacted the deep-level lines significantly in some ways at least - the Piccadilly line would likely not extend all the way into the suburbs to the west of London as it does because, as you made a video about recently, those are former District routes!

[@jsp7202]

The big four held an interest in the underground for many years, being joint owners of some of the rolling stock.

[@BibTheBoulderTheOriginalOne]

I often wonder what would have happened if the circle line had been a square....such are life's mysteries....

[@johnplampin7274]

Then you have the Chicago loop!

[@barrieshepherd7694]

Square or circle I would not care so long as it ran round and round in both directions! The current arrangement of changing at Edgware Road really pi**es me off. However I am impressed at how TfL manage, with few with exceptions, to make sure that the connections arrive and depart at the same time so there is no chance of making them 🤣

[@grahamstubbs4962]

The other kind of stock: chicken stock. If you weren't there, you can't remember it, baby.

[@GeorgeChoy]

Charles Tyson Yerkes, the king of the Underground. Jago, please do a shortest london bus route.

[@chrisg6086]

Fascinating ideas, thank you! :)

[@chrisamies2141]

Here's an idea: should the Kingston Loop be part of the Overground?

[@highpath4776]

I thought about that , not as such , but additional services via Kew could be incorporated in some way - I had forgotten Kingston had a terminating bay that would be handy for such

[@ianbailey4667]

A great what-if, might give some railway modellers ideas to build a speculative layout

[@lorenzoalejandrocampbell2066]

Speculative history with a sound foundation is great. "speculative" and "sound foundation", where have I been listening to so many puns?

[@1959BB]

One day I'm expecting and hoping Jago to describe our dodgy American friend as 'the real slim shady'.

[@patrickovsiu]

Even though the Met intimidated GWR away they came back soon after. Obviously the Met was in such a strong position that even GWR had to yield. While trains into the Met had not been from Reading at least Windsor did have them. If GWR had eaten the Met, the main difference would be the current Met main and GCR would not have existed in its form as we knew them, as well as the current Chiltern Main Line and the line via West Ruislip. Also London would probably have a proper Heathrow Express (considering GWR would have a hand in the District route to Acton).

[@AndreiTupolev]

So what would hsve happened with the Great Central in this alternative scenario, since the Met main line shares tracks with that for a fair distance? Would the GWR have been content to share that, or might it have taken an interest in the GC? Perhaps buying it altogether? So that at grouping it would have gone with the GWR rather than the LNER? 🤔🤫😶

[@kgbgb3663]

I've always thought that the grouping eliminated healthy competition, and that a GWR/GCR/Met combination would have been good. Similarly, why on earth was the Midland and South Western Junction railway from Andover to Andoversford given to the GWR when its whole point was to compete with the GWR and link up two of its competitors?

[@roderickjoyce6716]

Some time before the First Word War there was a proposal to merge the Great Northern, Midland, and Great Central.

[@MrGreatplum]

Excellent video, Jago - if the sub service lines has ended up being GWR and then BR, would they have had their own Beeching cuts?

[@highpath4776]

The GWR were one of the broadest railway companies too

[@Tonydjjokerit]

Jago , a speculative question or two for you! If the Met, District, Circle and Hammersmith and City were part of the GWR, Would they have tried to take over the Great Eastern and the LSWR too? and after nationalisation, Would they become part of British Rail or given to the London Underground then?

[@benoftheshire]

So all of that may have happened, GWR becomes part of BR in 1948 then in 1994 when BR gets privatised, it all gets absorbed back into the underground/TfL responsibility? Like the Waterloo and City's very big brother. Other than elements of the District missing, ends up largely the same?