3 ms·

The TFL service, the actual Metropolitan Line, only goes from London to Amersham. It used to go to Aylesbury, which is at least a moderate sized town, but it ha

The TFL service, the actual Metropolitan Line, only goes from London to Amersham. It used to go to Aylesbury, which is at least a moderate sized town, but it hasn't since electrification last century. Amersham is a 13th century market town. It's not tiny, but it's certainly not a city. Now, there are mainline services running on the same physical rails which do move passengers between London and other cities, but those don't turn into a stopping underground service, the trains leave those shared rails inside London and run to a terminus station, Marylebone. Marylebone is an Underground station, but only in the same sense as say King's Cross or Waterloo - the Underground is separate though located in the same warren of buildings and tunnels. The Elizabeth Line is closer to the model explained here, running a fast long distance service, a metro service and then back to fast long distance. Reading isn't a city but it's more significant than Amersham and those are core London services not a terminus with the option to change.

twic 2y ago
The Elizabeth line doesn't run a particularly fast long-distance service - it stops at all stations [1] between Reading and London. If you wanted to go from Reading to somewhere in central London, it would be faster to take a non-stop express which terminates at the edge of central London and then change onto the Elizabeth line than to take it all the way. The service to Reading is more about providing a local service between Reading and its surrounding small towns. [1] except Iver
sofixa 2y ago
> The Elizabeth Line is closer to the model explained here, running a fast long distance service, a metro service and then back to fast long distance It only has 5 stops with generous distance between them in London/Zone 1, which is equivalent to Parisian RERs. Not really what I would call metro service.
GeoAtreides 2y ago
Interesting how both sibling comments (by sofixa and twic) complain about opposite things: that Elizabeth is not a metro service (i.e. it's fast) and the other that it's not fast, it stops at all stations (i.e. it's a metro). It's interesting because both are true: outside of central london is a metro service, in central london is a fast service. The parent op explains it pretty well in the last paragraph: > running a fast long distance service, a metro service and then back to fast long distance.
blibble 2y ago
the met has express services that skip stations

twic 2y ago

The Elizabeth line doesn't run a particularly fast long-distance service - it stops at all stations [1] between Reading and London. If you wanted to go from Reading to somewhere in central London, it would be faster to take a non-stop express which terminates at the edge of central London and then change onto the Elizabeth line than to take it all the way. The service to Reading is more about providing a local service between Reading and its surrounding small towns. [1] except Iver

sofixa 2y ago

> The Elizabeth Line is closer to the model explained here, running a fast long distance service, a metro service and then back to fast long distance It only has 5 stops with generous distance between them in London/Zone 1, which is equivalent to Parisian RERs. Not really what I would call metro service.

GeoAtreides 2y ago

Interesting how both sibling comments (by sofixa and twic) complain about opposite things: that Elizabeth is not a metro service (i.e. it's fast) and the other that it's not fast, it stops at all stations (i.e. it's a metro). It's interesting because both are true: outside of central london is a metro service, in central london is a fast service. The parent op explains it pretty well in the last paragraph: > running a fast long distance service, a metro service and then back to fast long distance.

blibble 2y ago

the met has express services that skip stations