Why are there Underground zones 7-9?

For a long time now there have been zones 7-9 (formerly A-D) which have been made up of stations on the Metropolitan Line in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.
I know some of the history of the Metropolitan Railways and that these stations were originally part of that.  Does anyone know why the Underground runs these stations when there are no other stations outside of zone 6 - why this little branch of zones 7, 8 and 9?

If it's the fact that they just planned to take over the Metropolitan Railway and make those stations part of the Metropolitan Line then why aren't Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury part of the Met Line? (the stations beyond Amersham).  Why not just leave these stations in the hands of Chiltern Railway, the British Rail company or whoever it was that preceded them?

Don't get me wrong, I love it that tickets from Amersham are nearly half the price of other equally distant British Rail stations in Bucks, Berks or Herts solely because they are subsidised by LU.  But it makes me wonder why they haven't bothered to do it elsewhere or why they didn't just stop owning stations beyond Moor Park?

It'd be interesting if anyone knows the history of this.

I'm not sure about the development of the modern zone numbering, but the history of the Metropolitan Railway, how it became part of London Underground, and how the line has developed since then is quite convoluted.   Services ran out to Aylesbury until 1961, at which point the line was cut back to Amersham.   You might find this more detailed history of line informative:

http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/metropolitan.html

GREAT question!  I shall enquire of my friends who work for TFL and Chiltern.


Vicky

Undergound stations outside Zone 6 were previously in zones A to D but on January 2nd 2008 previous Zones A, B, C and D become Zones 7 (A & B), 8 (C) and 9 (D). The boundary of the outermost "conventional" London travel zone (Zone 6) is more or less coterminous with the GLA (Greater London Authority) area, (i.e. 'Greater London' or the 33 London Boroughs), whereas Zones 7,8 and 9 are in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Since fare levels are affected by the level of local authority subsidy it was necessary to make separate arrangements for those outlying zones.

A useful Wikipedia page about Zones 7 to 9 here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelcard_Zones_7-9

Regarding the line beyond Amersham, originally the Metropolitan Railway ran services all the way to Verney Junction, past Aylesbury. In 1899 the Great Central Railway was projected southwards to London, running over the Met tracks from Verney Junction to Harrow On The Hill, thereafter the GC ran on its own tracks alongside the Met to its terminus at Marylebone.

In 1906 the shared section between Harrow and Verney Junction was leased to a joint committee of the GC and Met railways, which operated the line for 5 years each alternately. This arrangement lasted until 1933 when the Met was taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board and absorbed into what became the "London Underground".

Until 1961 the Met was not electrified beyond Harrow On the Hill, and electric locomotives hauled trains of conventional carriages from the latter station to Aylesbury and Chesham. In 1961 electrification was extended to Amersham and Chesham and the line beyond Amersham handed over entirely to British Railways as it then was, the predecessor of Chiltern Railways.

1. Preserved Metropolitan Railway electric locomotive, "Sarah Siddons", used up to 1961



2. Metropolitan Line A60 type train, used since 1961, and soon to be replaced. (original condition)



3. New 'S' stock to be introduced in 2009 or 2010

That S stock is beautiful!

I spent many an unhappy hour travelling on the ricketty old A60's when I was at uni in Uxbridge.  Very unpleasant, especially before they replaced the track and it was like travelling a roller coaster.  Not good with a hangover.

Vicky

The ride on the A60s and their brethren the A62s is legendarily awful. The bogies had a tendency to emulate the Lady Of Shalott's mirror if run at over 60 mph on the bumpy Met track, so they are limited to that speed to reduce maintenance costs.

Maybe the comfort levels and technical aspects of that new S stock will be fine, but I can't say I like the aesthetics. 

I still have very fond memories of the 1959 and 1962 tube stock, but then I did grow up riding the Piccadilly line regularly in the 1970s, so I suppose that's to be expected!

In the mid 1960s I used to get Rover tickets on Saturdays which allowed unlimited Underground travel all day (except north of Harrow On The Hill on the Met) and I used to "bash" a particular line each time. I have fond memories of Hownslow West - Cockfosters and West Ruislip-Epping in 59 and 62 TS. Actually my fondest memory is the Northern City Line in 1925 Standard stock in 1965. Also the East London Line had these really strange ex-District G23 (modified Q stock) single cars which were previously used on the South Acton-Acton Town shuttle. The South Acton branch closed in 1959.

Standard stock



Q stock

Why does the A60 look like it should be in some post-apocalyptic warzone?  Did the designer actually consider that it didn't look like a fireball had hit it?  Maybe they were on a shoestring budget?

Why did London Underground purchase the whole Metropolitan Railway?  Did they not realize that their service is to cover London - not halfway to Oxford?  Maybe it was too good a deal to pass up?  I guess I can see that if no other train operator wanted it then they were stuck with it, or perhaps it was more of a money spinner then if the appeal of traveling to Metroland was so great?  I'm sure there is some interesting and convoluted answer to it.

Why does the A60 look like it should be in some post-apocalyptic warzone?  Did the designer actually consider that it didn't look like a fireball had hit it?  Maybe they were on a shoestring budget?

Well, that shot was taken when the stock was about 30 years old, and the unpainted aluminium cladding that was so trendy in 1961 didn't age well. Especially after graffiti has been applied and removed lots of times. Some NY Subway stock of that era has aged equally badly. The A60 & A62 stock has since been refurbished and is now painted and looks a lot better.

Why did London Underground purchase the whole Metropolitan Railway?  Did they not realize that their service is to cover London - not halfway to Oxford?

They had no choice; They didn't actually "purchase" it. In 1933 the government decided what railways were to be nationalised and absorbed into the LPTB, which was from its beginnings meant to serve London and the area around, to quite a long way out. London Transport Country Buses (the green ones) ran to places like Hitchin, Harlow and Horsham. Green Line express buses also served very outlying places. The Met had always been a suburban commuter railway, unlike the other  more urban-rail parts of the Underground like the Circle & District and the deep level tubes.

In the mid 1960s I used to get Rover tickets on Saturdays which allowed unlimited Underground travel all day (except north of Harrow On The Hill on the Met) and I used to "bash" a particular line each time.

I had to explain to a non-train enthusiast what was meant by 'bashing' last night! 


Vicky

I had to explain to a non-train enthusiast what was meant by 'bashing' last night! 


Vicky

He wasn't a bishop, was he?

Hehehe!


Vicky

Why does the A60 look like it should be in some post-apocalyptic warzone? 

The unpainted bodies became the norm around that time.  Here is the 1959 TS that I mentioned earlier:



And the interior:

I have fond memories of Hownslow West - Cockfosters and West Ruislip-Epping in 59 and 62 TS. Actually my fondest memory is the Northern City Line in 1925 Standard stock in 1965.

The 1925 stock is a little too early for me, but along with the Piccadilly the Northern line was another line I rode regularly when I was young, and it was still using the 1938 TS at the time:

They had no choice; They didn't actually "purchase" it. In 1933 the government decided what railways were to be nationalised and absorbed into the LPTB

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Metropolitan tried to resist the absorption into the LPTB by claiming that it served places which were outside the main London area ("Metro-Land") and should thus be classed as a mainline railway.  Apparently this is the exact opposite of what the Met. had claimed some years earlier!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Metropolitan tried to resist the absorption into the LPTB by claiming that it served places which were outside the main London area ("Metro-Land") and should thus be classed as a mainline railway.  Apparently this is the exact opposite of what the Met. had claimed some years earlier!

Yes indeedy. Having been the only major underground line not to be absorbed into the Yerkes group, and having successfully avoided being caught up in the 1923 Grouping on the grounds it only served the London area, it fiercely (but unsuccessfully) fought nationalization in 1933 on the claim that it was a main line and should not be part of London Transport!

The Met always was a rule unto itself, and before the LPTB was set up they used to argue fiercely with other companies. There were bitter feuds with the District over such things as facilities at Rayners Lane. (You will remember that pre-LPTB the District used to provide the service to Rayners Lane & Uxbridge that the Piccadilly took over in the 1930s).