Not sure if this has ever been discussed on here before, but can you think of any examples of:
(a) Lines that were proposed but never built.
(b) Lines that were never proposed as far as you know, but where you think a railway line could, and should, have been built.
Maybe there should be separate threads for each of these, but I can think of an example that kind of fits both categories.
I believe that when the District Railway (now District Line) extension to Wimbledon was being planned in the 1880s, there was a scheme to build a line from East Putney to Roehampton (not sure whether this would have been as well as or instead of the Wimbledon line).
If such a line had been built, I think it should have had an intermediate station at Putney Heath, and could have been extended beyond Roehampton to Kingston, either via Kingston Vale or via Petersham and Ham Common. These are all areas not served by rail, and where the only public transport is the bus. Also, it would have provided a direct rail service between Putney and Kingston without having to cross the Thames twice.
Such a service could either have operated from Waterloo via the Point Pleasant Junction-East Putney spur, or as a branch of the District Line.
However, planning permission could have been a problem, as it would have presumably meant either building the line across, or a tunnel under, Richmond Park.
More recently, I seem to recall that in about 1990, the then Transport Secretary Cecil Parkinson proposed an extension of the Hammersmith & City Line southwards from Hammersmith to Barnes and Roehampton - again that would have helped to reduce traffic congestion on Hammersmith Bridge, but unfortunately that scheme never saw the light of day. Not sure about the practicalities of it, though: I guess it would have either had to be on a viaduct (which might have required some houses to be demolished) or they would have had to build a tunnel.
(a) Lines that were proposed but never built.
(b) Lines that were never proposed as far as you know, but where you think a railway line could, and should, have been built.
Maybe there should be separate threads for each of these, but I can think of an example that kind of fits both categories.
I believe that when the District Railway (now District Line) extension to Wimbledon was being planned in the 1880s, there was a scheme to build a line from East Putney to Roehampton (not sure whether this would have been as well as or instead of the Wimbledon line).
If such a line had been built, I think it should have had an intermediate station at Putney Heath, and could have been extended beyond Roehampton to Kingston, either via Kingston Vale or via Petersham and Ham Common. These are all areas not served by rail, and where the only public transport is the bus. Also, it would have provided a direct rail service between Putney and Kingston without having to cross the Thames twice.
Such a service could either have operated from Waterloo via the Point Pleasant Junction-East Putney spur, or as a branch of the District Line.
However, planning permission could have been a problem, as it would have presumably meant either building the line across, or a tunnel under, Richmond Park.
More recently, I seem to recall that in about 1990, the then Transport Secretary Cecil Parkinson proposed an extension of the Hammersmith & City Line southwards from Hammersmith to Barnes and Roehampton - again that would have helped to reduce traffic congestion on Hammersmith Bridge, but unfortunately that scheme never saw the light of day. Not sure about the practicalities of it, though: I guess it would have either had to be on a viaduct (which might have required some houses to be demolished) or they would have had to build a tunnel.